T Langsenlehner1, C Döller, P Winkler, G Gallé, K S Kapp. 1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 32, Graz, Austria. tanja.langsenlehner@klinikum-graz.at
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to analyze interfraction and intrafraction deviations and residual set-up errors (RSE) after online repositioning to determine PTV margins for 3 different alignment techniques in prostate cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: The present prospective study included 44 prostate cancer patients with implanted fiducials treated with three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy. Daily localization was based on skin marks followed by marker detection using kilovoltage (kV) imaging and subsequent patient repositioning. Additionally, in-treatment megavoltage (MV) images were obtained for each treatment field. In an off-line analysis of 7,273 images, interfraction prostate motion, RSE after marker-based prostate localization, prostate position during each treatment session, and the effect of treatment time on intrafraction deviations were analyzed to evaluate PTV margins. RESULTS: Margins accounting for interfraction deviation, RSE and intrafraction motion were 14.1, 12.9, and 15.1 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) direction for skin mark alignment and 9.6, 8.7, and 2.6 mm for bony structure alignment, respectively. Alignment to implanted markers required margins of 4.6, 2.8, and 2.5 mm. As margins to account for intrafraction motion increased with treatment prolongation PTV margins could be reduced to 3.9, 2.6, and 2.4 mm if treatment time was ≤ 4 min. CONCLUSION: With daily online correction and repositioning based on implanted fiducials, a significant reduction of PTV margins can be achieved. The use of an optimized workflow with faster treatment techniques such as volumetric modulated arc techniques (VMAT) could allow for a further decrease.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to analyze interfraction and intrafraction deviations and residual set-up errors (RSE) after online repositioning to determine PTV margins for 3 different alignment techniques in prostate cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: The present prospective study included 44 prostate cancerpatients with implanted fiducials treated with three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy. Daily localization was based on skin marks followed by marker detection using kilovoltage (kV) imaging and subsequent patient repositioning. Additionally, in-treatment megavoltage (MV) images were obtained for each treatment field. In an off-line analysis of 7,273 images, interfraction prostate motion, RSE after marker-based prostate localization, prostate position during each treatment session, and the effect of treatment time on intrafraction deviations were analyzed to evaluate PTV margins. RESULTS: Margins accounting for interfraction deviation, RSE and intrafraction motion were 14.1, 12.9, and 15.1 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) direction for skin mark alignment and 9.6, 8.7, and 2.6 mm for bony structure alignment, respectively. Alignment to implanted markers required margins of 4.6, 2.8, and 2.5 mm. As margins to account for intrafraction motion increased with treatment prolongation PTV margins could be reduced to 3.9, 2.6, and 2.4 mm if treatment time was ≤ 4 min. CONCLUSION: With daily online correction and repositioning based on implanted fiducials, a significant reduction of PTV margins can be achieved. The use of an optimized workflow with faster treatment techniques such as volumetric modulated arc techniques (VMAT) could allow for a further decrease.
Authors: James A Tanyi; Tongming He; Paige A Summers; Ruth G Mburu; Catherine M Kato; Stephen M Rhodes; Arthur Y Hung; Martin Fuss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Richard Holy; Victoria Djukic; Jens Klotz; Barbara Krenkel; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cédric M Panje; Alan Dal Pra; Thomas Zilli; Daniel R Zwahlen; Alexandros Papachristofilou; Fernanda G Herrera; Oscar Matzinger; Ludwig Plasswilm; Paul Martin Putora Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Avilash K Cramer; Amanu G Haile; Sanja Ognjenovic; Tulsee S Doshi; William Matthew Reilly; Katherine E Rubinstein; Nima Nabavizadeh; Thuan Nguyen; Lu Z Meng; Martin Fuss; James A Tanyi; Arthur Y Hung Journal: BMC Med Phys Date: 2013-09-23
Authors: Jens Wölfelschneider; Tobias Brandt; Sebastian Lettmaier; Rainer Fietkau; Christoph Bert Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-11-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Christoph Oehler; Stephanie Lang; Peter Dimmerling; Christian Bolesch; Stephan Kloeck; Alessandra Tini; Christoph Glanzmann; Yousef Najafi; Gabriela Studer; Daniel R Zwahlen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Joen Sveistrup; Per Munck af Rosenschöld; Joseph O Deasy; Jung Hun Oh; Tobias Pommer; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Svend Aage Engelholm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 3.481