BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer, the consideration of various systematic error types leads to wide treatment margins compromising normal tissue tolerance. We investigated if systematic set-up errors can be reduced by a set of initial image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) sessions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 27 patients received daily IGRT resulting in a set of 882 cone-beam computed tomographies (CBCTs). After matching to bony structures, we analyzed the dimensions of remaining systematic errors from zero up to six initial IGRT sessions and aimed at a restriction of daily IGRT for 10% of all patients. For threshold definition, we determined the standard deviations (SD) of the shift corrections and selected patients out of this range for daily image guidance. To calculate total treatment margins, we demanded for a cumulative clinical target volume (CTV) coverage of at least 95% of the specified dose in 90% of all patients. RESULTS: The gain of accuracy was largest during the first three IGRTs. In order to match precision and workload criteria, thresholds for the SD of the corrections of 3.5 mm, 2.0 mm and 4.5 mm in the left-right (L-R), cranial-caudal (C-C), and anterior-posterior (A-P) direction, respectively, were identified. Including all other error types, the total margins added to the CTV amounted to 8.6 mm in L-R, 10.4 mm in C-C, and 14.4 mm in A-P direction. CONCLUSION: Only initially performed IGRT might be helpful for eliminating gross systematic errors especially after virtual simulation. However, even with daily IGRT performance, a substantial PTV margin reduction is only achievable by matching internal markers instead of bony anatomical structures.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer, the consideration of various systematic error types leads to wide treatment margins compromising normal tissue tolerance. We investigated if systematic set-up errors can be reduced by a set of initial image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) sessions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 27 patients received daily IGRT resulting in a set of 882 cone-beam computed tomographies (CBCTs). After matching to bony structures, we analyzed the dimensions of remaining systematic errors from zero up to six initial IGRT sessions and aimed at a restriction of daily IGRT for 10% of all patients. For threshold definition, we determined the standard deviations (SD) of the shift corrections and selected patients out of this range for daily image guidance. To calculate total treatment margins, we demanded for a cumulative clinical target volume (CTV) coverage of at least 95% of the specified dose in 90% of all patients. RESULTS: The gain of accuracy was largest during the first three IGRTs. In order to match precision and workload criteria, thresholds for the SD of the corrections of 3.5 mm, 2.0 mm and 4.5 mm in the left-right (L-R), cranial-caudal (C-C), and anterior-posterior (A-P) direction, respectively, were identified. Including all other error types, the total margins added to the CTV amounted to 8.6 mm in L-R, 10.4 mm in C-C, and 14.4 mm in A-P direction. CONCLUSION: Only initially performed IGRT might be helpful for eliminating gross systematic errors especially after virtual simulation. However, even with daily IGRT performance, a substantial PTV margin reduction is only achievable by matching internal markers instead of bony anatomical structures.
Authors: Sanford L Meeks; Joseph F Harmon; Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J Wu; T Haycocks; H Alasti; G Ottewell; N Middlemiss; M Abdolell; P Warde; A Toi; C Catton Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Frank Van den Heuvel; Tanya Powell; Edward Seppi; Peter Littrupp; Mubashra Khan; Yue Wang; Jeffrey D Forman Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Georgina Fröhlich; Péter Agoston; József Lövey; András Somogyi; János Fodor; Csaba Polgár; Tibor Major Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Jana Sefrova; Petr Paluska; Milan Zouhar; Jan Jansa; Zuzana Macingova; Lida Jarosova; Milos Brodak; Petr Moravek; Igor Hartmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: David Skarsgard; Pat Cadman; Ali El-Gayed; Robert Pearcey; Patricia Tai; Nadeem Pervez; Jackson Wu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Johanne Hermesse; Sylvie Biver; Nicolas Jansen; Eric Lenaerts; Nathalie De Patoul; Stefaan Vynckier; Philippe Coucke; Pierre Scalliet; Philippe Nickers Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621