PURPOSE: Using real-time electromagnetic (EM) transponder tracking data recorded by the Calypso 4D Localization System, we report inter- and intrafractional target motion of the prostate bed, describe a strategy to evaluate treatment adequacy in postprostatectomy patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and propose an adaptive workflow. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tracking data recorded by Calypso EM transponders was analyzed for postprostatectomy patients that underwent step-and-shoot IMRT. Rigid target motion parameters during beam delivery were calculated from recorded transponder positions in 16 patients with rigid transponder geometry. The delivered doses to the clinical target volume (CTV) were estimated from the planned dose matrix and the target motion for the first 3, 5, 10, and all fractions. Treatment adequacy was determined by comparing the delivered minimum dose (Dmin) with the planned Dmin to the CTV. Treatments were considered adequate if the delivered CTV Dmin is at least 95% of the planned CTV Dmin. RESULTS: Translational target motion was minimal for all 16 patients (mean: 0.02 cm; range: -0.12 cm to 0.07 cm). Rotational motion was patient-specific, and maximum pitch, yaw, and roll were 12.2, 4.1, and 10.5°, respectively. We observed inadequate treatments in 5 patients. In these treatments, we observed greater target rotations along with large distances between the CTV centroid and transponder centroid. The treatment adequacy from the initial 10 fractions successfully predicted the overall adequacy in 4 of 5 inadequate treatments and 10 of 11 adequate treatments. CONCLUSION: Target rotational motion could cause underdosage to partial volume of the postprostatectomy targets. Our adaptive treatment strategy is applicable to post-prostatectomy patients receiving IMRT to evaluate and improve radiation therapy delivery.
PURPOSE: Using real-time electromagnetic (EM) transponder tracking data recorded by the Calypso 4D Localization System, we report inter- and intrafractional target motion of the prostate bed, describe a strategy to evaluate treatment adequacy in postprostatectomy patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and propose an adaptive workflow. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tracking data recorded by Calypso EM transponders was analyzed for postprostatectomy patients that underwent step-and-shoot IMRT. Rigid target motion parameters during beam delivery were calculated from recorded transponder positions in 16 patients with rigid transponder geometry. The delivered doses to the clinical target volume (CTV) were estimated from the planned dose matrix and the target motion for the first 3, 5, 10, and all fractions. Treatment adequacy was determined by comparing the delivered minimum dose (Dmin) with the planned Dmin to the CTV. Treatments were considered adequate if the delivered CTV Dmin is at least 95% of the planned CTV Dmin. RESULTS: Translational target motion was minimal for all 16 patients (mean: 0.02 cm; range: -0.12 cm to 0.07 cm). Rotational motion was patient-specific, and maximum pitch, yaw, and roll were 12.2, 4.1, and 10.5°, respectively. We observed inadequate treatments in 5 patients. In these treatments, we observed greater target rotations along with large distances between the CTV centroid and transponder centroid. The treatment adequacy from the initial 10 fractions successfully predicted the overall adequacy in 4 of 5 inadequate treatments and 10 of 11 adequate treatments. CONCLUSION: Target rotational motion could cause underdosage to partial volume of the postprostatectomy targets. Our adaptive treatment strategy is applicable to post-prostatectomy patients receiving IMRT to evaluate and improve radiation therapy delivery.
Authors: Daniel C Schiffner; Alexander R Gottschalk; Michael Lometti; Michele Aubin; Jean Pouliot; Joycelyn Speight; I-Chow Hsu; Katsuto Shinohara; Mack Roach Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jan J W Lagendijk; Bas W Raaymakers; Alexander J E Raaijmakers; Johan Overweg; Kevin J Brown; Ellen M Kerkhof; Richard W van der Put; Björn Hårdemark; Marco van Vulpen; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jon Kindblom; Ann-Marie Ekelund-Olvenmark; Hanna Syren; Roman Iustin; Karin Braide; Ingela Frank-Lissbrant; Bo Lennernäs Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Kamen Paskalev; Steven Feigenberg; Rojymon Jacob; Shawn McNeeley; Eric Horwitz; Robert Price; Charlie Ma; Alan Pollack Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2005-11-21 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sara Elakshar; James Man Git Tsui; Michael Jonathan Kucharczyk; Nada Tomic; Ziad Simon Fawaz; Boris Bahoric; Joseph Papayanatos; Ahmad Chaddad; Tamim Niazi Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Mona Splinter; Tilman Bostel; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 6.244