PURPOSE: To investigate robust margin strategies in intensity modulated proton therapy to account for interfractional organ motion in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 9 patients, one planning computed tomography (CT) scan and daily and weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired and coregistered. The following planning target volume (PTV) approaches were investigated: a clinical target volume (CTV) delineated on the planning CT (CTV(ct)) plus 10-mm margin (PTV(10mm)); a reduced PTV (PTV(Red)): CTV(ct) plus 5 mm in the left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions and 8 mm in the inferior-superior (IS) directions; and a PTV(Hull) method: the sum of CTV(ct) and CTVs from 5 CBCTs from the first week plus 3 mm in the LR and IS directions and 5 mm in the AP direction. For each approach, separate plans were calculated using a spot-scanning technique with 2 lateral fields. RESULTS: Each approach achieved excellent target coverage. Differences were observed in volume receiving 98% of the prescribed dose (V(98%)) where PTV(Hull) and PTV(Red) results were superior to the PTV(10mm) concept. The PTV(Hull) approach was more robust to organ motion. The V(98%) for CTVs was 99.7%, whereas for PTV(Red) and PTV(10mm) plans, V(98%) was 98% and 96.1%, respectively. Doses to organs at risk were higher for PTV(Hull) and PTV(10mm) plans than for PTV(Red), but only differences between PTV(10mm) and PTV(Red) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of organ sparing, the PTV(10mm) method was inferior but not significantly different from the PTV(Red) and PTV(Hull) approaches. PTV(Hull) was most insensitive to target motion.
PURPOSE: To investigate robust margin strategies in intensity modulated proton therapy to account for interfractional organ motion in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 9 patients, one planning computed tomography (CT) scan and daily and weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired and coregistered. The following planning target volume (PTV) approaches were investigated: a clinical target volume (CTV) delineated on the planning CT (CTV(ct)) plus 10-mm margin (PTV(10mm)); a reduced PTV (PTV(Red)): CTV(ct) plus 5 mm in the left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions and 8 mm in the inferior-superior (IS) directions; and a PTV(Hull) method: the sum of CTV(ct) and CTVs from 5 CBCTs from the first week plus 3 mm in the LR and IS directions and 5 mm in the AP direction. For each approach, separate plans were calculated using a spot-scanning technique with 2 lateral fields. RESULTS: Each approach achieved excellent target coverage. Differences were observed in volume receiving 98% of the prescribed dose (V(98%)) where PTV(Hull) and PTV(Red) results were superior to the PTV(10mm) concept. The PTV(Hull) approach was more robust to organ motion. The V(98%) for CTVs was 99.7%, whereas for PTV(Red) and PTV(10mm) plans, V(98%) was 98% and 96.1%, respectively. Doses to organs at risk were higher for PTV(Hull) and PTV(10mm) plans than for PTV(Red), but only differences between PTV(10mm) and PTV(Red) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of organ sparing, the PTV(10mm) method was inferior but not significantly different from the PTV(Red) and PTV(Hull) approaches. PTV(Hull) was most insensitive to target motion.
Authors: Sebastian Hild; Christian Graeff; Antoni Rucinski; Klemens Zink; Gregor Habl; Marco Durante; Klaus Herfarth; Christoph Bert Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 3.621