PURPOSE: To evaluate the setup, interfraction, and intrafraction organ motion error distributions and simulate intrafraction intervention strategies for prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 17 patients underwent treatment setup and were monitored using the Calypso system during radiotherapy. On average, the prostate tracking measurements were performed for 8 min/fraction for 28 fractions for each patient. For both patient couch shift data and intrafraction organ motion data, the systematic and random errors were obtained from the patient population. The planning target volume margins were calculated using the van Herk formula. Two intervention strategies were simulated using the tracking data: the deviation threshold and period. The related planning target volume margins, time costs, and prostate position "fluctuation" were presented. RESULTS: The required treatment margin for the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior axes was 8.4, 10.8, and 14.7 mm for skin mark-only setup and 1.3, 2.3, and 2.8 mm using the on-line setup correction, respectively. Prostate motion significantly correlated among the superoinferior and anteroposterior directions. Of the 17 patients, 14 had prostate motion within 5 mm of the initial setup position for ≥91.6% of the total tracking time. The treatment margin decreased to 1.1, 1.8, and 2.3 mm with a 3-mm threshold correction and to 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm with an every-2-min correction in the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior directions, respectively. The periodic corrections significantly increase the treatment time and increased the number of instances when the setup correction was made during transient excursions. CONCLUSIONS: The residual systematic and random error due to intrafraction prostate motion is small after on-line setup correction. Threshold-based and time-based intervention strategies both reduced the planning target volume margins. The time-based strategies increased the treatment time and the in-fraction position fluctuation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the setup, interfraction, and intrafraction organ motion error distributions and simulate intrafraction intervention strategies for prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 17 patients underwent treatment setup and were monitored using the Calypso system during radiotherapy. On average, the prostate tracking measurements were performed for 8 min/fraction for 28 fractions for each patient. For both patient couch shift data and intrafraction organ motion data, the systematic and random errors were obtained from the patient population. The planning target volume margins were calculated using the van Herk formula. Two intervention strategies were simulated using the tracking data: the deviation threshold and period. The related planning target volume margins, time costs, and prostate position "fluctuation" were presented. RESULTS: The required treatment margin for the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior axes was 8.4, 10.8, and 14.7 mm for skin mark-only setup and 1.3, 2.3, and 2.8 mm using the on-line setup correction, respectively. Prostate motion significantly correlated among the superoinferior and anteroposterior directions. Of the 17 patients, 14 had prostate motion within 5 mm of the initial setup position for ≥91.6% of the total tracking time. The treatment margin decreased to 1.1, 1.8, and 2.3 mm with a 3-mm threshold correction and to 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm with an every-2-min correction in the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior directions, respectively. The periodic corrections significantly increase the treatment time and increased the number of instances when the setup correction was made during transient excursions. CONCLUSIONS: The residual systematic and random error due to intrafraction prostate motion is small after on-line setup correction. Threshold-based and time-based intervention strategies both reduced the planning target volume margins. The time-based strategies increased the treatment time and the in-fraction position fluctuation.
Authors: Aart J Nederveen; Uulke A van der Heide; Homan Dehnad; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer C O'Daniel; Lei Dong; Lifei Zhang; Renaud de Crevoisier; He Wang; Andrew K Lee; Rex Cheung; Susan L Tucker; Rajat J Kudchadker; Mark D Bonnen; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Sanford L Meeks; Anand Santhanam; Alexis Cunningham; Lisa Levine; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Haisen S Li; Indrin J Chetty; Charles A Enke; Ryan D Foster; Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupellian; Timothy D Solberg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jin Aun Ng; Jeremy T Booth; Per R Poulsen; Walther Fledelius; Esben Schjødt Worm; Thomas Eade; Fiona Hegi; Andrew Kneebone; Zdenka Kuncic; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Richard Oates; Daryl Jones; Farshad Foroudi; Suki Gill; Prabhakar Ramachandran; Michal Schneider; Michael Lim Joon; Tomas Kron Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: Kimberley Legge; Doan Nguyen; Jin Aun Ng; Lee Wilton; Matthew Richardson; Jeremy Booth; Paul Keall; Darryl J O'Connor; Peter Greer; Jarad Martin Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 2.102