PURPOSE: To calculate the generic planning target margin (GPTM) for patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) for rectal cancer placed in a prone position with a customized cradle for small-bowel exclusion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 consecutive rectal cancer patients were treated for 25 or 28 fractions in a prone position using a cradle to maximize small bowel exclusion. Treatment planning computed tomography (CT) scans were used to create orthogonally digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) for portal image registration, which were compared with daily portal images from an electronic portal-imaging device (EPID). Translation values needed to align the DRRs and EPIDs were recorded for the superior to inferior (SI), right to left (RL), and anterior to posterior (AP) directions, and used to calculate the GPTM using the four-parameter model. Age, weight, and body mass index were tested compared with the setup variation using a Pearson correlation and a t test for significance. Gender versus setup variation was compared with a t test. RESULTS: A total of 1,723 EPID images were reviewed. The GPTM was 10 mm superior, 8 mm inferior, 7 mm RL and 10 mm AP. Age and gender were unrelated to setup variation. Weight was significantly associated with systematic AP variation (p < 0.05). BMI was significantly associated with systematic SI (p < 0.05) and AP (p < 0.01) variation and random RL variation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The GPTM for rectal cancer is asymmetric with a maximum of 10 mm in the superior, anterior and posterior dimensions. Body mass index may effect setup variation. Research using advanced treatment planning should include these margins in the planning target volume definition.
PURPOSE: To calculate the generic planning target margin (GPTM) for patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) for rectal cancer placed in a prone position with a customized cradle for small-bowel exclusion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 consecutive rectal cancerpatients were treated for 25 or 28 fractions in a prone position using a cradle to maximize small bowel exclusion. Treatment planning computed tomography (CT) scans were used to create orthogonally digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) for portal image registration, which were compared with daily portal images from an electronic portal-imaging device (EPID). Translation values needed to align the DRRs and EPIDs were recorded for the superior to inferior (SI), right to left (RL), and anterior to posterior (AP) directions, and used to calculate the GPTM using the four-parameter model. Age, weight, and body mass index were tested compared with the setup variation using a Pearson correlation and a t test for significance. Gender versus setup variation was compared with a t test. RESULTS: A total of 1,723 EPID images were reviewed. The GPTM was 10 mm superior, 8 mm inferior, 7 mm RL and 10 mm AP. Age and gender were unrelated to setup variation. Weight was significantly associated with systematic AP variation (p < 0.05). BMI was significantly associated with systematic SI (p < 0.05) and AP (p < 0.01) variation and random RL variation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The GPTM for rectal cancer is asymmetric with a maximum of 10 mm in the superior, anterior and posterior dimensions. Body mass index may effect setup variation. Research using advanced treatment planning should include these margins in the planning target volume definition.
Authors: Eva M Lozano; Luis A Pérez; Javier Torres; Carmen Carrascosa; Miguel Sanz; Fermín Mendicote; Antonio Gil Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Won Sup Yoon; Dae Sik Yang; Jung Ae Lee; Suk Lee; Young Je Park; Chul Yong Kim Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102