PURPOSE: To quantify and evaluate the accumulated prostate, rectum, and bladder dose for several strategies including rotational organ motion correction for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer using realistic organ motion data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Repeat computed tomography (CT) scans of 19 prostate patients were used. Per patient, two IMRT plans with different uniform margins were created. To quantify prostate and seminal vesicle motion, repeat CT clinical target volumes (CTVs) were matched onto the planning CTV using deformable registration. Four different strategies, from online setup to full motion correction, were simulated. Rotations were corrected for using gantry and collimator angle adjustments. Prostate, rectum, and bladder doses were accumulated for each patient, plan, and strategy. Minimum CTV dose (D(min)), rectum equivalent uniform dose (EUD, n = 0.13), and bladder surface receiving >or=78 Gy (S78), were calculated. RESULTS: With online CTV translation correction, a 7-mm margin was sufficient (i.e., D(min) >or= 95% of the prescribed dose for all patients). A 4-mm margin required additional rotational correction. Margin reduction lowered the rectum EUD(n = 0.13) by approximately 2.6 Gy, and the bladder S78 by approximately 1.9%. CONCLUSIONS: With online correction of both translations and rotations, a 4-mm margin was sufficient for 15 of 19 patients, whereas the remaining four patients had an underdosed CTV volume <1%. Margin reduction combined with online corrections resulted in a similar or lower dose to the rectum and bladder. The more advanced the correction strategy, the better the planned and accumulated dose agreed.
PURPOSE: To quantify and evaluate the accumulated prostate, rectum, and bladder dose for several strategies including rotational organ motion correction for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer using realistic organ motion data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Repeat computed tomography (CT) scans of 19 prostate patients were used. Per patient, two IMRT plans with different uniform margins were created. To quantify prostate and seminal vesicle motion, repeat CT clinical target volumes (CTVs) were matched onto the planning CTV using deformable registration. Four different strategies, from online setup to full motion correction, were simulated. Rotations were corrected for using gantry and collimator angle adjustments. Prostate, rectum, and bladder doses were accumulated for each patient, plan, and strategy. Minimum CTV dose (D(min)), rectum equivalent uniform dose (EUD, n = 0.13), and bladder surface receiving >or=78 Gy (S78), were calculated. RESULTS: With online CTV translation correction, a 7-mm margin was sufficient (i.e., D(min) >or= 95% of the prescribed dose for all patients). A 4-mm margin required additional rotational correction. Margin reduction lowered the rectum EUD(n = 0.13) by approximately 2.6 Gy, and the bladder S78 by approximately 1.9%. CONCLUSIONS: With online correction of both translations and rotations, a 4-mm margin was sufficient for 15 of 19 patients, whereas the remaining four patients had an underdosed CTV volume <1%. Margin reduction combined with online corrections resulted in a similar or lower dose to the rectum and bladder. The more advanced the correction strategy, the better the planned and accumulated dose agreed.
Authors: Nienke A Hoffmans-Holtzer; Daan Hoffmans; Max Dahele; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.621
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: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Emile N van Lin; Joep G H van Roermund; Philippe Lambin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sabine Levegrün; Christoph Pöttgen; Konstantinos Xydis; Maja Guberina; Jehad Abu Jawad; Martin Stuschke Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Casper Gammelmark Muurholm; Thomas Ravkilde; Robin De Roover; Simon Skouboe; Rune Hansen; Wouter Crijns; Tom Depuydt; Per R Poulsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.506