PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of translational and rotational errors on prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with an integrated boost to the tumor and to evaluate the effect of the use of an on-line correction protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 19 patients, who had been treated with prostate IMRT and fiducial marker-based position verification, highly inhomogeneous IMRT plans, including an integrated tumor boost, were made using varying margins (2, 4, 6, and 8 mm). The measured translational and rotational errors were used to calculate the dose using two positioning strategies: an off-line and an on-line protocol to correct the translational shifts. The estimated dose to the targets and the organs at risk was compared with the intended dose. RESULTS: Residual deviations after off-line correction led to statistically significant, but very small, reductions in dose coverage. Even when a 2-mm margin was used, the average reduction in dose to 99% of the volume was 1.4 +/- 1.9 Gy for the tumor, 1.5 +/- 1.5 Gy for the prostate without seminal vesicles (boost volume), and 4.3 +/- 4.6 Gy, including the seminal vesicles (clinical target volume). Patients with large systematic rotational errors demonstrated a substantial decrease in dose, especially for the clinical target volume. If an on-line correction protocol was used, the average mean dose and dose to 99% of the volume of the targets improved. However, the extensive dose reduction for patients with large rotational errors barely recovered with on-line correction. CONCLUSION: For complex prostate IMRT with an integrated tumor boost, the use of an on-line correction protocol yields little improvement without the correction of rotational errors.
PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of translational and rotational errors on prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with an integrated boost to the tumor and to evaluate the effect of the use of an on-line correction protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 19 patients, who had been treated with prostate IMRT and fiducial marker-based position verification, highly inhomogeneous IMRT plans, including an integrated tumor boost, were made using varying margins (2, 4, 6, and 8 mm). The measured translational and rotational errors were used to calculate the dose using two positioning strategies: an off-line and an on-line protocol to correct the translational shifts. The estimated dose to the targets and the organs at risk was compared with the intended dose. RESULTS: Residual deviations after off-line correction led to statistically significant, but very small, reductions in dose coverage. Even when a 2-mm margin was used, the average reduction in dose to 99% of the volume was 1.4 +/- 1.9 Gy for the tumor, 1.5 +/- 1.5 Gy for the prostate without seminal vesicles (boost volume), and 4.3 +/- 4.6 Gy, including the seminal vesicles (clinical target volume). Patients with large systematic rotational errors demonstrated a substantial decrease in dose, especially for the clinical target volume. If an on-line correction protocol was used, the average mean dose and dose to 99% of the volume of the targets improved. However, the extensive dose reduction for patients with large rotational errors barely recovered with on-line correction. CONCLUSION: For complex prostate IMRT with an integrated tumor boost, the use of an on-line correction protocol yields little improvement without the correction of rotational errors.
Authors: Tobias Pommer; Marianne Falk; Per R Poulsen; Paul J Keall; Ricky T O'Brien; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Per Munck af Rosenschöld Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Siyuan Lei; Nathaniel Piel; Eric K Oermann; Viola Chen; Andrew W Ju; Kedar N Dahal; Heather N Hanscom; Joy S Kim; Xia Yu; Guowei Zhang; Brian T Collins; Reena Jha; Anatoly Dritschilo; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Irene M Lips; Uulke A van der Heide; Karin Haustermans; Emile N J T van Lin; Floris Pos; Stefan P G Franken; Alexis N T J Kotte; Carla H van Gils; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Trials Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Benedikt Thomann; Khodor Koubar; Peter Bronsert; Tobias Krauss; Hans C Rischke; Ilias Sachpazidis; Vanessa Drendel; Nasr Salman; Kathrin Reichel; Cordula A Jilg; Martin Werner; Philipp T Meyer; Michael Bock; Dimos Baltas; Anca L Grosu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.481