PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-fractional uncertainties during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During IMRT of 21 consecutive patients, kilovolt (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were acquired prior to and immediately after treatment: a total of 252 treatment fractions with 504 CBCT studies were basis of this analysis. The prostate position in anterior-posterior (AP) direction was determined using contour matching; patient set-up based on the pelvic bony anatomy was evaluated using automatic image registration. Internal variability of the prostate position was the difference between absolute prostate and patient position errors. Intra-fractional changes of prostate position, patient position, rectal distension in AP direction and bladder volume were analyzed. RESULTS: With a median treatment time of 16 min, intra-fractional drifts of the prostate were >5 mm in 12% of all fractions and a margin of 6 mm was calculated for compensation of this uncertainty. Mobility of the prostate was independent from the bony anatomy with poor correlation between absolute prostate motion and motion of the bony anatomy (R2=0.24). A systematic increase of bladder filling by 41 ccm on average was observed; however, these changes did not influence the prostate position. Small variations of the prostate position occurred independently from intra-fractional changes of the rectal distension; a weak correlation between large internal prostate motion and changes of the rectal volume was observed (R2=0.55). CONCLUSION: Clinically significant intra-fractional changes of the prostate position were observed and margins of 6 mm were calculated for this intra-fractional uncertainty. Repeated or continuous verification of the prostate position may allow further margin reduction.
PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-fractional uncertainties during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During IMRT of 21 consecutive patients, kilovolt (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were acquired prior to and immediately after treatment: a total of 252 treatment fractions with 504 CBCT studies were basis of this analysis. The prostate position in anterior-posterior (AP) direction was determined using contour matching; patient set-up based on the pelvic bony anatomy was evaluated using automatic image registration. Internal variability of the prostate position was the difference between absolute prostate and patient position errors. Intra-fractional changes of prostate position, patient position, rectal distension in AP direction and bladder volume were analyzed. RESULTS: With a median treatment time of 16 min, intra-fractional drifts of the prostate were >5 mm in 12% of all fractions and a margin of 6 mm was calculated for compensation of this uncertainty. Mobility of the prostate was independent from the bony anatomy with poor correlation between absolute prostate motion and motion of the bony anatomy (R2=0.24). A systematic increase of bladder filling by 41 ccm on average was observed; however, these changes did not influence the prostate position. Small variations of the prostate position occurred independently from intra-fractional changes of the rectal distension; a weak correlation between large internal prostate motion and changes of the rectal volume was observed (R2=0.55). CONCLUSION: Clinically significant intra-fractional changes of the prostate position were observed and margins of 6 mm were calculated for this intra-fractional uncertainty. Repeated or continuous verification of the prostate position may allow further margin reduction.
Authors: G O De Meerleer; L A Vakaet; W R De Gersem; C De Wagter; B De Naeyer; W De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Guy Soete; Jan Van de Steene; Dirk Verellen; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Dirk Van den Berge; Dirk Michielsen; Frans Keuppens; Patricia De Roover; Guy Storme Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Vipul V Thakkar; Deepak Khuntia; Chandana A Reddy; Eric A Klein; Arul Mahadevan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michel J Ghilezan; David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Marcel Van Herk; Anil Shetty; Michael B Sharpe; Syed Zafar Jafri; Frank A Vicini; Richard C Matter; Donald S Brabbins; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eugene Huang; Lei Dong; Anurag Chandra; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac I Rosen; Anissa Evans; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Hilke Vorwerk; Daniela Wagner; Björn Seitz; Hans Christiansen; Hendrik A Wolff; Clemens F Hess Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Gertrude Schirl; Anja Baldinger; Thomas H Helbich; Richard Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jürgen Wilbert; Matthias Guckenberger; Bülent Polat; Otto Sauer; Michael Vogele; Michael Flentje; Reinhart A Sweeney Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 3.481