Steven van de Water1, Lorella Valli2, Shafak Aluwini3, Nico Lanconelli4, Ben Heijmen3, Mischa Hoogeman3. 1. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.vandewater@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Alma Mater Studiorum, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy. 3. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Alma Mater Studiorum, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and the effect of robot correction strategies for hypofractionated CyberKnife treatments with a simultaneously integrated boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 548 real-time prostate motion tracks from 17 patients were available for dosimetric simulations of CyberKnife treatments, in which various correction strategies were included. Fixed time intervals between imaging/correction (15, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) were simulated, as well as adaptive timing (ie, the time interval reduced from 60 to 15 seconds in case prostate motion exceeded 3 mm or 2° in consecutive images). The simulated extent of robot corrections was also varied: no corrections, translational corrections only, and translational corrections combined with rotational corrections up to 5°, 10°, and perfect rotational correction. The correction strategies were evaluated for treatment plans with a 0-mm or 3-mm margin around the clinical target volume (CTV). We recorded CTV coverage (V100%) and dose-volume parameters of the peripheral zone (boost), rectum, bladder, and urethra. RESULTS: Planned dose parameters were increasingly preserved with larger extents of robot corrections. A time interval between corrections of 60 to 180 seconds provided optimal preservation of CTV coverage. To achieve 98% CTV coverage in 98% of the treatments, translational and rotational corrections up to 10° were required for the 0-mm margin plans, whereas translational and rotational corrections up to 5° were required for the 3-mm margin plans. Rectum and bladder were spared considerably better in the 0-mm margin plans. Adaptive timing did not improve delivered dose. CONCLUSIONS: Intrafraction prostate motion substantially affected the delivered dose but was compensated for effectively by robot corrections using a time interval of 60 to 180 seconds. A 0-mm margin required larger extents of additional rotational corrections than a 3-mm margin but resulted in lower doses to rectum and bladder.
PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and the effect of robot correction strategies for hypofractionated CyberKnife treatments with a simultaneously integrated boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 548 real-time prostate motion tracks from 17 patients were available for dosimetric simulations of CyberKnife treatments, in which various correction strategies were included. Fixed time intervals between imaging/correction (15, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) were simulated, as well as adaptive timing (ie, the time interval reduced from 60 to 15 seconds in case prostate motion exceeded 3 mm or 2° in consecutive images). The simulated extent of robot corrections was also varied: no corrections, translational corrections only, and translational corrections combined with rotational corrections up to 5°, 10°, and perfect rotational correction. The correction strategies were evaluated for treatment plans with a 0-mm or 3-mm margin around the clinical target volume (CTV). We recorded CTV coverage (V100%) and dose-volume parameters of the peripheral zone (boost), rectum, bladder, and urethra. RESULTS: Planned dose parameters were increasingly preserved with larger extents of robot corrections. A time interval between corrections of 60 to 180 seconds provided optimal preservation of CTV coverage. To achieve 98% CTV coverage in 98% of the treatments, translational and rotational corrections up to 10° were required for the 0-mm margin plans, whereas translational and rotational corrections up to 5° were required for the 3-mm margin plans. Rectum and bladder were spared considerably better in the 0-mm margin plans. Adaptive timing did not improve delivered dose. CONCLUSIONS: Intrafraction prostate motion substantially affected the delivered dose but was compensated for effectively by robot corrections using a time interval of 60 to 180 seconds. A 0-mm margin required larger extents of additional rotational corrections than a 3-mm margin but resulted in lower doses to rectum and bladder.
Authors: Michael Wahl; Martina Descovich; Erin Shugard; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Albert Chang; Mack Roach; Alexander Gottschalk; Josephine Chen Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Abdul Wahab M Sharfo; Linda Rossi; Maarten L P Dirkx; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Shafak Aluwini; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Christoph Oehler; Nina Roehner; Marcin Sumila; Jürgen Curschmann; Fabrizio Storelli; Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen; Uwe Schneider Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 3.109