PURPOSE: We have created an automated process using real-time tracking data to evaluate the adequacy of planning target volume (PTV) margins in prostate cancer, allowing a process of adaptive radiotherapy with minimal physician workload. We present an analysis of PTV adequacy and a proposed adaptive process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tracking data were analyzed for 15 patients who underwent step-and-shoot multi-leaf collimation (SMLC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with uniform 5-mm PTV margins for prostate cancer using the Calypso® Localization System. Additional plans were generated with 0- and 3-mm margins. A custom software application using the planned dose distribution and structure location from computed tomography (CT) simulation was developed to evaluate the dosimetric impact to the target due to motion. The dose delivered to the prostate was calculated for the initial three, five, and 10 fractions, and for the entire treatment. Treatment was accepted as adequate if the minimum delivered prostate dose (D(min)) was at least 98% of the planned D(min). RESULTS: For 0-, 3-, and 5-mm PTV margins, adequate treatment was obtained in 3 of 15, 12 of 15, and 15 of 15 patients, and the delivered D(min) ranged from 78% to 99%, 96% to 100%, and 99% to 100% of the planned D(min). Changes in D(min) did not correlate with magnitude of prostate motion. Treatment adequacy during the first 10 fractions predicted sufficient dose delivery for the entire treatment for all patients and margins. CONCLUSIONS: Our adaptive process successfully used real-time tracking data to predict the need for PTV modifications, without the added burden of physician contouring and image analysis. Our methods are applicable to other uses of real-time tracking, including hypofractionated treatment. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: We have created an automated process using real-time tracking data to evaluate the adequacy of planning target volume (PTV) margins in prostate cancer, allowing a process of adaptive radiotherapy with minimal physician workload. We present an analysis of PTV adequacy and a proposed adaptive process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tracking data were analyzed for 15 patients who underwent step-and-shoot multi-leaf collimation (SMLC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with uniform 5-mm PTV margins for prostate cancer using the Calypso® Localization System. Additional plans were generated with 0- and 3-mm margins. A custom software application using the planned dose distribution and structure location from computed tomography (CT) simulation was developed to evaluate the dosimetric impact to the target due to motion. The dose delivered to the prostate was calculated for the initial three, five, and 10 fractions, and for the entire treatment. Treatment was accepted as adequate if the minimum delivered prostate dose (D(min)) was at least 98% of the planned D(min). RESULTS: For 0-, 3-, and 5-mm PTV margins, adequate treatment was obtained in 3 of 15, 12 of 15, and 15 of 15 patients, and the delivered D(min) ranged from 78% to 99%, 96% to 100%, and 99% to 100% of the planned D(min). Changes in D(min) did not correlate with magnitude of prostate motion. Treatment adequacy during the first 10 fractions predicted sufficient dose delivery for the entire treatment for all patients and margins. CONCLUSIONS: Our adaptive process successfully used real-time tracking data to predict the need for PTV modifications, without the added burden of physician contouring and image analysis. Our methods are applicable to other uses of real-time tracking, including hypofractionated treatment. Copyright Â
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: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; J Fondurulia; M H Chen; I Kaplan; C J Beard; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; A Wein; C N Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Katja M Langen; Omar A Zeidan; Sanford L Meeks; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Sam Jeswani; Kenneth J Ruchala; Jason Haimerl; Gustavo H Olivera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Michelle L DeSilvio; Jerry D Slater; Carl J Rossi; Daniel W Miller; Judith A Adams; William U Shipley Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupelian; Jean Pouliot; Katsuto Shinohara; Michelle Aubin; Mack Roach; Lisa L Skrumeda; James M Balter; Dale W Litzenberg; Scott W Hadley; John T Wei; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kirsten E I Deurloo; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Lambert J Zijp; Josien A de Bois; Peter J C M Nowak; Coen R N Rasch; Marcel van Herk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Deborah Kuban; Alan Pollack; Eugene Huang; Larry Levy; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey R Olsen; Parag J Parikh; Michael Watts; Camille E Noel; Kenneth W Baker; Lakshmi Santanam; Jeff M Michalski Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Richard Oates; Suki Gill; Farshad Foroudi; Michael Lim Joon; Michal Schneider; Mathias Bressel; Tomas Kron Journal: J Med Phys Date: 2015 Jan-Mar