A Duffton1, S McNee, R Muirhead, A Alhasso. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. aileen.duffton@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to clinically commission an online seed matching image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) protocol using modern hardware/software for patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy. An essential constraint was to achieve this within a busy centre without reducing patient throughput, which had been reported with other techniques. METHODS: 45 patients had 3 fiducial markers inserted into the prostate and were imaged daily using kilovoltage orthogonal images with online correction applied before treatment. A total of 1612 image pairs were acquired and analysed to identify interfractional motion, seed migration and interobserver variability, and assess ease of use. RESULTS: This method of IGRT was implemented successfully in our centre with no impact on treatment times and patient throughput. Systematic (Σ) interfractional set-up errors were 2.2, 2.7 and 3.9 mm in right-left (RL), superoinferior (SI) and anteroposterior (AP) directions, respectively. Random (σ) interfractional set-up errors were 3.2 (RL), 3.7 (SI) and 5.7 mm (AP). There were significant differences between patients. Seed migration and interobserver variability were not significant issues. CONCLUSIONS: The described technique is facilitated by the advanced imaging system, allowing a fast and effective method of correcting set-up errors before treatment. Extended implementation of this technique has improved treatment delivery to the majority of our prostate radiotherapy patients. The measurement of interfractional motion in this study is potentially valuable for margin reduction in intensity-modulated radiotherapy/volumetric arc therapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This technique can be used within treatment time constraints, benefiting large numbers of patients by helping to avoid geographical miss and potentially reducing toxicity to organs at risk.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to clinically commission an online seed matching image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) protocol using modern hardware/software for patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy. An essential constraint was to achieve this within a busy centre without reducing patient throughput, which had been reported with other techniques. METHODS: 45 patients had 3 fiducial markers inserted into the prostate and were imaged daily using kilovoltage orthogonal images with online correction applied before treatment. A total of 1612 image pairs were acquired and analysed to identify interfractional motion, seed migration and interobserver variability, and assess ease of use. RESULTS: This method of IGRT was implemented successfully in our centre with no impact on treatment times and patient throughput. Systematic (Σ) interfractional set-up errors were 2.2, 2.7 and 3.9 mm in right-left (RL), superoinferior (SI) and anteroposterior (AP) directions, respectively. Random (σ) interfractional set-up errors were 3.2 (RL), 3.7 (SI) and 5.7 mm (AP). There were significant differences between patients. Seed migration and interobserver variability were not significant issues. CONCLUSIONS: The described technique is facilitated by the advanced imaging system, allowing a fast and effective method of correcting set-up errors before treatment. Extended implementation of this technique has improved treatment delivery to the majority of our prostate radiotherapy patients. The measurement of interfractional motion in this study is potentially valuable for margin reduction in intensity-modulated radiotherapy/volumetric arc therapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This technique can be used within treatment time constraints, benefiting large numbers of patients by helping to avoid geographical miss and potentially reducing toxicity to organs at risk.
Authors: M J Zelefsky; D Cowen; Z Fuks; M Shike; C Burman; A Jackson; E S Venkatramen; S A Leibel Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter W M Chung; Tara Haycocks; Tanya Brown; Zoe Cambridge; Valerie Kelly; Hamideh Alasti; David A Jaffray; Charles N Catton Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Homan Dehnad; Aart J Nederveen; Uulke A van der Heide; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Aart J Nederveen; Homan Dehnad; Uulke A van der Heide; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michael G Herman; Thomas M Pisansky; Jon J Kruse; Joann I Prisciandaro; Brian J Davis; Bernard F King Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Louis Potters; Deepak Khuntia; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Thomas P Carlson; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Padraig Warde; Malcolm Mason; Keyue Ding; Peter Kirkbride; Michael Brundage; Richard Cowan; Mary Gospodarowicz; Karen Sanders; Edmund Kostashuk; Greg Swanson; Jim Barber; Andrea Hiltz; Mahesh K B Parmar; Jinka Sathya; John Anderson; Charles Hayter; John Hetherington; Matthew R Sydes; Wendy Parulekar Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 79.321