PURPOSE: To determine the expected benefit of image-guided online replanning over image-guided repositioning of localized prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 10 to 11 CT scans of each of 10 early-stage prostate cancer patients, the prostate, bladder and rectum are manually segmented. Using a 3-mm PTV margin expansion from the CTV, an IMRT plan is made on the first CT scan of each patient. Online repositioning is simulated by recalculating the IMRT plan from the initial CT scan on the subsequent CT scans of each patient. For online replanning, IMRT is replanned twice on all CT scans, using 0-mm and 3-mm margins. The doses from subsequent CT images of each patient are then deformed to the initial CT anatomy using a mesh-based thin-plate B-spline deformation method and are accumulated for DVH and isodose review. RESULTS: Paired t-tests show that online replanning with 3-mm margins significantly increases the prostate volume receiving the prescribed dose over replanning with 0-mm margins (p-value 0.004); gives marginally better target coverage than repositioning with 3-mm margins(p-value 0.06-0.343), and reduces variations in target coverage over repositioning. Fractional volumes of rectum and bladder receiving 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, and 95% (V75, V80, V85, V90, and V95) of the prescription dose are evaluated. V90 and V95 values for the rectum are 1.6% and 0.7 % for 3-mm margin replanning and 1% and 0.4 % for 0-mm margin replanning, with p-values of 0.010-0.011. No significant differences between repositioning and replanning with 3-mm margins are found for both the rectum and the bladder. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided replanning using 3-mm margins reduces target coverage variations, and maintains comparable rectum and bladder sparing to patient repositioning in localized prostate cancer IMRT. Marginal reductions in doses to rectum and bladder are possible when planning margins are eliminated in the online replanning scenario. However, further reduction in treatment planning margins is not recommended.
PURPOSE: To determine the expected benefit of image-guided online replanning over image-guided repositioning of localized prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 10 to 11 CT scans of each of 10 early-stage prostate cancerpatients, the prostate, bladder and rectum are manually segmented. Using a 3-mm PTV margin expansion from the CTV, an IMRT plan is made on the first CT scan of each patient. Online repositioning is simulated by recalculating the IMRT plan from the initial CT scan on the subsequent CT scans of each patient. For online replanning, IMRT is replanned twice on all CT scans, using 0-mm and 3-mm margins. The doses from subsequent CT images of each patient are then deformed to the initial CT anatomy using a mesh-based thin-plate B-spline deformation method and are accumulated for DVH and isodose review. RESULTS: Paired t-tests show that online replanning with 3-mm margins significantly increases the prostate volume receiving the prescribed dose over replanning with 0-mm margins (p-value 0.004); gives marginally better target coverage than repositioning with 3-mm margins(p-value 0.06-0.343), and reduces variations in target coverage over repositioning. Fractional volumes of rectum and bladder receiving 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, and 95% (V75, V80, V85, V90, and V95) of the prescription dose are evaluated. V90 and V95 values for the rectum are 1.6% and 0.7 % for 3-mm margin replanning and 1% and 0.4 % for 0-mm margin replanning, with p-values of 0.010-0.011. No significant differences between repositioning and replanning with 3-mm margins are found for both the rectum and the bladder. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided replanning using 3-mm margins reduces target coverage variations, and maintains comparable rectum and bladder sparing to patient repositioning in localized prostate cancer IMRT. Marginal reductions in doses to rectum and bladder are possible when planning margins are eliminated in the online replanning scenario. However, further reduction in treatment planning margins is not recommended.
Authors: Valeria Meier; Chris Staudinger; Stephan Radonic; Jürgen Besserer; Uwe Schneider; Linda Walsh; Carla Rohrer Bley Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.613