PURPOSE: To assess the influence of fiducial marker (FM) migration on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The position of FMs were identified using on-board kV imaging (OBI) and their 3-D position established using an in-house reconstruction algorithm for 31 patients with prostate adenocarcinoma. To carry out the match, the positions were overlaid on the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) generated from the planning CT. The distance between each FM was calculated for seven treatments throughout the EBRT course. Four radiotherapy technologists were asked to independently perform and rate the match from OBI to DRR which was then correlated to the extent of FM migration. RESULTS: All the matches were rated by at least three radiotherapy technologists as "very easy" ("easy" subgroup) for 24 patients (77%), while the other seven patients had their match rated less than "very easy" and considered the "not easy" subgroup. The average daily FM migration was 0.93+/-0.34 mm for the "easy" subgroup vs. 1.82+/-0.75 mm for the latter. An average migration >2 mm was seen in five/seven patients in the "not easy" subgroup as compared to none in the "easy" subgroup. There was a trend towards less FM migration and better matching if the planning CT was done later than the day of the FM implant (p=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: FM migration >2 mm predicts for a more difficult matching process; PTV margins might have to be adjusted or the planning CT repeated. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To assess the influence of fiducial marker (FM) migration on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The position of FMs were identified using on-board kV imaging (OBI) and their 3-D position established using an in-house reconstruction algorithm for 31 patients with prostate adenocarcinoma. To carry out the match, the positions were overlaid on the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) generated from the planning CT. The distance between each FM was calculated for seven treatments throughout the EBRT course. Four radiotherapy technologists were asked to independently perform and rate the match from OBI to DRR which was then correlated to the extent of FM migration. RESULTS: All the matches were rated by at least three radiotherapy technologists as "very easy" ("easy" subgroup) for 24 patients (77%), while the other seven patients had their match rated less than "very easy" and considered the "not easy" subgroup. The average daily FM migration was 0.93+/-0.34 mm for the "easy" subgroup vs. 1.82+/-0.75 mm for the latter. An average migration >2 mm was seen in five/seven patients in the "not easy" subgroup as compared to none in the "easy" subgroup. There was a trend towards less FM migration and better matching if the planning CT was done later than the day of the FM implant (p=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: FM migration >2 mm predicts for a more difficult matching process; PTV margins might have to be adjusted or the planning CT repeated. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: B A Jereczek-Fossa; C Pobbiati; L Santoro; C Fodor; P Fanti; S Vigorito; G Baroni; D Zerini; O De Cobelli; R Orecchia Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-08-17 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Bryan P Bednarz; Sydney Jupitz; Warren Lee; David Mills; Heather Chan; Timothy Fiorillo; James Sabitini; David Shoudy; Aqsa Patel; Jhimli Mitra; Shourya Sarcar; Bo Wang; Andrew Shepard; Charles Matrosic; James Holmes; Wesley Culberson; Michael Bassetti; Patrick Hill; Alan McMillan; James Zagzebski; L Scott Smith; Thomas K Foo Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.119
Authors: Adam Gladwish; Geordi Pang; Patrick Cheung; Laura D'Alimonte; Andrea Deabreu; Andrew Loblaw Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Julian C Hong; Neville C W Eclov; Yao Yu; Aarti K Rao; Sonja Dieterich; Quynh-Thu Le; Maximilian Diehn; Daniel Y Sze; Billy W Loo; Nishita Kothary; Peter G Maxim Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 2.102