PURPOSE: Modern HDR brachytherapy treatment for prostate cancer based on the 3D ultrasound (U/S) plays increasingly important role. The purpose of this study is to investigate possible patient movement and anatomy alteration between the clinical image set acquisition, made after the needle implantation, and the patient irradiation and their influence on the quality of treatment. METHODS: The authors used 3D U/S image sets and the corresponding treatment plans based on a 4D-treatment planning procedure: plans of 25 patients are obtained right after the needle implantation (clinical plan is based on this 3D image set) and just before and after the treatment delivery. The authors notice the slight decrease of treatment quality with increase of time gap between the clinical image set acquisition and the patient irradiation. 4D analysis of dose-volume-histograms (DVHs) for prostate: CTV1 = PTV, and urethra, rectum, and bladder as organs at risk (OARs) and conformity index (COIN) is presented, demonstrating the effect of prostate, OARs, and needles displacement. RESULTS: The authors show that in the case that the patient body movement/anatomy alteration takes place, this results in modification of DVHs and radiobiological parameters, hence the plan quality. The observed average displacement of needles (1 mm) and of prostate (0.57 mm) is quite small as compared with the average displacement noted in several other reports [A. A. Martinez et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 49(1), 61-69 (2001); S. J. Damore et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 46(5), 1205-1211 (2000); P. J. Hoskin et al., Radiotherm. Oncol. 68(3), 285-288 (2003); E. Mullokandov et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 58(4), 1063-1071 (2004)] in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although the decrease of quality of dosimetric and radiobiological parameters occurs, this does not cause clinically unacceptable changes to the 3D dose distribution, according to our clinical protocol.
PURPOSE: Modern HDR brachytherapy treatment for prostate cancer based on the 3D ultrasound (U/S) plays increasingly important role. The purpose of this study is to investigate possible patient movement and anatomy alteration between the clinical image set acquisition, made after the needle implantation, and the patient irradiation and their influence on the quality of treatment. METHODS: The authors used 3D U/S image sets and the corresponding treatment plans based on a 4D-treatment planning procedure: plans of 25 patients are obtained right after the needle implantation (clinical plan is based on this 3D image set) and just before and after the treatment delivery. The authors notice the slight decrease of treatment quality with increase of time gap between the clinical image set acquisition and the patient irradiation. 4D analysis of dose-volume-histograms (DVHs) for prostate: CTV1 = PTV, and urethra, rectum, and bladder as organs at risk (OARs) and conformity index (COIN) is presented, demonstrating the effect of prostate, OARs, and needles displacement. RESULTS: The authors show that in the case that the patient body movement/anatomy alteration takes place, this results in modification of DVHs and radiobiological parameters, hence the plan quality. The observed average displacement of needles (1 mm) and of prostate (0.57 mm) is quite small as compared with the average displacement noted in several other reports [A. A. Martinez et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 49(1), 61-69 (2001); S. J. Damore et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 46(5), 1205-1211 (2000); P. J. Hoskin et al., Radiotherm. Oncol. 68(3), 285-288 (2003); E. Mullokandov et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 58(4), 1063-1071 (2004)] in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although the decrease of quality of dosimetric and radiobiological parameters occurs, this does not cause clinically unacceptable changes to the 3D dose distribution, according to our clinical protocol.
Authors: Christian Kirisits; Mark J Rivard; Dimos Baltas; Facundo Ballester; Marisol De Brabandere; Rob van der Laarse; Yury Niatsetski; Panagiotis Papagiannis; Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Jose Perez-Calatayud; Kari Tanderup; Jack L M Venselaar; Frank-André Siebert Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Anna M Dinkla; Bradley R Pieters; Kees Koedooder; Niek van Wieringen; Rob van der Laarse; Arjan Bel Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.481