PURPOSE: Image-guided dose-escalated radiotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer. Although many published methods are available that account for prostate motion during delivery, evidence demonstrating that the planned dose is actually delivered on a daily basis is lacking. We report our initial clinical experience using implantable dosimeters to quantify and adjust the dose received during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 20 patients undergoing IMRT with cone-beam computed tomography (CT) image guidance for prostate cancer had the dose verification system with radiopaque metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters implanted before treatment planning. All patients underwent planning with CT simulation in the supine position with custom immobilization, and the implanted dosimeters were located in the IMRT plans. The predicted dose for each dosimeter was defined and compared with the wireless readings before and after each treatment session. Investigations by physicians and medical physicists were initiated for two or more discrepancies >6% for any five consecutive fractions or for any discrepancy ≥10%. RESULTS: Using implanted in vivo dosimeters, dose measurements consistently >6% greater than the predicted values were observed during treatment for 3 of 20 prostate cancer patients who received IMRT with daily image guidance. A review of the daily cone-beam CT images revealed acceptable alignment of the prostate target volumes and implanted dosimeters but identified significant anatomic changes within the treated region. Repeat CT simulation and RT planning was performed, with resolution of the dose discrepancies in all 3 cases with the adoption of a new IMRT plan. CONCLUSIONS: Our report illustrates the potential effect of implanted in vivo dosimetry for prostate IMRT and emphasizes the importance of careful planning and delivery with attention to systematic shifts or anatomic changes that could alter the dose distributions.
PURPOSE: Image-guided dose-escalated radiotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer. Although many published methods are available that account for prostate motion during delivery, evidence demonstrating that the planned dose is actually delivered on a daily basis is lacking. We report our initial clinical experience using implantable dosimeters to quantify and adjust the dose received during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 20 patients undergoing IMRT with cone-beam computed tomography (CT) image guidance for prostate cancer had the dose verification system with radiopaque metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters implanted before treatment planning. All patients underwent planning with CT simulation in the supine position with custom immobilization, and the implanted dosimeters were located in the IMRT plans. The predicted dose for each dosimeter was defined and compared with the wireless readings before and after each treatment session. Investigations by physicians and medical physicists were initiated for two or more discrepancies >6% for any five consecutive fractions or for any discrepancy ≥10%. RESULTS: Using implanted in vivo dosimeters, dose measurements consistently >6% greater than the predicted values were observed during treatment for 3 of 20 prostate cancerpatients who received IMRT with daily image guidance. A review of the daily cone-beam CT images revealed acceptable alignment of the prostate target volumes and implanted dosimeters but identified significant anatomic changes within the treated region. Repeat CT simulation and RT planning was performed, with resolution of the dose discrepancies in all 3 cases with the adoption of a new IMRT plan. CONCLUSIONS: Our report illustrates the potential effect of implanted in vivo dosimetry for prostate IMRT and emphasizes the importance of careful planning and delivery with attention to systematic shifts or anatomic changes that could alter the dose distributions.
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Adam P Dicker; Laura A Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-10-20
Authors: Ivan Buzurovic; Timothy N Showalter; Matthew T Studenski; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Junsheng Cao; Ying Xiao; Yan Yu; Amy Harrison Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 2.102