OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefit of introduction of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) to prostate radiotherapy practice with current clinical target volume-planning target volume (PTV) margins of 5-10 mm. METHODS: Systematic error data collected from 50 patients were used together with a random error of σ=3.0 mm to model non-IGRT treatment. IGRT was modelled with residual errors of Σ=σ=1.5 mm. Population tumour control probability (TCP(pop)) was calculated for two three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy techniques: two-phase and concomitant boost. Treatment volumes and dose prescriptions were ostensibly the same. The relative field sizes of the treatment techniques, distribution of systematic errors and correlations between movement axes were examined. RESULTS: The differences in TCP(pop) between the IGRT and non-IGRT regimes were 0.3% for the two-phase and 1.5% for the concomitant boost techniques. A 2-phase plan, in each phase of which the 95% isodose conformed to its respective PTV, required fields that were 3.5 mm larger than those required for the concomitant boost plan. Despite the larger field sizes, the TCP (without IGRT) in the two-phase plan was only 1.7% higher than the TCP in the concomitant boost plan. The deviation of craniocaudal systematic errors (p=0.02) from a normal distribution, and the correlation of translations in the craniocaudal and anteroposterior directions (p<0.0001) were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The expected population benefit of IGRT for the modelled situation was too small to be detected by a clinical trial of reasonable size, although there was a significant benefit to individual patients. For IGRT to have an observable population benefit, the trial would need to use smaller margins than those used in this study. Concomitant treatment techniques permit smaller fields and tighter conformality than two phases planned separately.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefit of introduction of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) to prostate radiotherapy practice with current clinical target volume-planning target volume (PTV) margins of 5-10 mm. METHODS: Systematic error data collected from 50 patients were used together with a random error of σ=3.0 mm to model non-IGRT treatment. IGRT was modelled with residual errors of Σ=σ=1.5 mm. Population tumour control probability (TCP(pop)) was calculated for two three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy techniques: two-phase and concomitant boost. Treatment volumes and dose prescriptions were ostensibly the same. The relative field sizes of the treatment techniques, distribution of systematic errors and correlations between movement axes were examined. RESULTS: The differences in TCP(pop) between the IGRT and non-IGRT regimes were 0.3% for the two-phase and 1.5% for the concomitant boost techniques. A 2-phase plan, in each phase of which the 95% isodose conformed to its respective PTV, required fields that were 3.5 mm larger than those required for the concomitant boost plan. Despite the larger field sizes, the TCP (without IGRT) in the two-phase plan was only 1.7% higher than the TCP in the concomitant boost plan. The deviation of craniocaudal systematic errors (p=0.02) from a normal distribution, and the correlation of translations in the craniocaudal and anteroposterior directions (p<0.0001) were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The expected population benefit of IGRT for the modelled situation was too small to be detected by a clinical trial of reasonable size, although there was a significant benefit to individual patients. For IGRT to have an observable population benefit, the trial would need to use smaller margins than those used in this study. Concomitant treatment techniques permit smaller fields and tighter conformality than two phases planned separately.
Authors: Marcel van Herk; Marnix Witte; Joris van der Geer; Christoph Schneider; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Diaz; M Roach; C Marquez; L Coleman; B Pickett; J S Wolfe; P Carroll; P Narayan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038