PURPOSE: To quantify daily variations in the anatomy of patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma, to estimate their effect on dose distribution, and to evaluate the effectiveness of current standard planning and setup approaches employed in proton therapy. METHODS: We used series of computed tomography data, which included the pretreatment scan, and between 21 and 43 in-room scans acquired on different treatment days, from 10 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy at Morristown Memorial Hospital. Variations in femur rotation angles, thickness of subcutaneous adipose tissue, and physical depth to the distal surface of the prostate for lateral beam arrangement were recorded. Proton dose distributions were planned with the standard approach. Daily variations in the location of the prescription isodose were evaluated. RESULTS: In all 10 datasets, substantial variation was observed in the lateral tissue thickness (standard deviation of 1.7-3.6 mm for individual patients, variations of >5 mm from the planning computed tomography observed in all series), and femur rotation angle (standard deviation between 1.3° and 4.8°, with the maximum excursion exceeding 10° in 6 of 10 datasets). Shifts in the position of treated volume (98% isodose) were correlated with the variations in the lateral tissue thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis suggests that, combined with image-guided setup verification, the range compensator expansion technique prevents loss of dose to target from femur rotation and soft-tissue deformation, in the majority of cases. Anatomic changes coupled with the uncertainties of particle penetration in tissue restrict possibilities for margin reduction in proton therapy of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To quantify daily variations in the anatomy of patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma, to estimate their effect on dose distribution, and to evaluate the effectiveness of current standard planning and setup approaches employed in proton therapy. METHODS: We used series of computed tomography data, which included the pretreatment scan, and between 21 and 43 in-room scans acquired on different treatment days, from 10 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy at Morristown Memorial Hospital. Variations in femur rotation angles, thickness of subcutaneous adipose tissue, and physical depth to the distal surface of the prostate for lateral beam arrangement were recorded. Proton dose distributions were planned with the standard approach. Daily variations in the location of the prescription isodose were evaluated. RESULTS: In all 10 datasets, substantial variation was observed in the lateral tissue thickness (standard deviation of 1.7-3.6 mm for individual patients, variations of >5 mm from the planning computed tomography observed in all series), and femur rotation angle (standard deviation between 1.3° and 4.8°, with the maximum excursion exceeding 10° in 6 of 10 datasets). Shifts in the position of treated volume (98% isodose) were correlated with the variations in the lateral tissue thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis suggests that, combined with image-guided setup verification, the range compensator expansion technique prevents loss of dose to target from femur rotation and soft-tissue deformation, in the majority of cases. Anatomic changes coupled with the uncertainties of particle penetration in tissue restrict possibilities for margin reduction in proton therapy of prostate cancer.
Authors: Alexei Trofimov; Paul L Nguyen; John J Coen; Karen P Doppke; Robert J Schneider; Judith A Adams; Thomas R Bortfeld; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas F Delaney; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 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: Uwe Schneider; Jürgen Besserer; Peter Pemler; Matthias Dellert; Martin Moosburger; Eros Pedroni; Barbara Kaser-Hotz Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Katia Parodi; Harald Paganetti; Helen A Shih; Susan Michaud; Jay S Loeffler; Thomas F DeLaney; Norbert J Liebsch; John E Munzenrider; Alan J Fischman; Antje Knopf; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yi Wang; Jason A Efstathiou; Gregory C Sharp; Hsiao-Ming Lu; I Frank Ciernik; Alexei V Trofimov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Eric Dinges; Nicole Felderman; Sarah McGuire; Brandie Gross; Sudershan Bhatia; Sarah Mott; John Buatti; Dongxu Wang Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Chuan Zeng; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Clemens Grassberger; Saveli Goldberg; Andrzej Niemierko; Harald Paganetti; Jason A Efstathiou; Alexei Trofimov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.071