Daniel R Simpson1, John P Einck1, Sameer K Nath1, Rajni A Sethi1, Jia Zhu Wang1, Arno J Mundt1, Ajay P Sandhu2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Advanced Radiotherapy Technologies, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Advanced Radiotherapy Technologies, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: apsandhu@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review our initial clinical experience with image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for prostate bed localization in post-radical prostatectomy (RP) patients and to compare shift and acute toxicity results to our previously published IGRT experience with daily kV planar imaging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) who had image guidance using either CBCT (n = 23) or kV planar imaging (n = 27) following RP were analyzed. Shifts were recorded in anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right axes. Total error was defined as the shift from initial setup based on skin markings to isocenter. Prostate bed motion (PBM) was defined as the change in prostate bed position relative to bones. Acute toxicity was graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group morbidity criteria. RESULTS: Total error (TE) was measured in 752 CBCTs and 725 kV planar image pairs. PBM was measured in 585 CBCTs and 384 kV planar image pairs. The average magnitudes of TE and PBM in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right axes were greater with kV planar imaging compared to CBCT. Frequencies of acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (13% vs 7%, P = .7) and genitourinary (9% vs 11%, P = 1.0) were similar for CBCT and kV planar imaging patients. No toxicities greater than grade 2 were seen. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that although the magnitudes of TE and PBM were larger with kV planar compared to CBCT, the levels of acute toxicity were acceptable and comparable between the two. The reasons for the differences are unclear, but we postulate that discernment of the prostate bed on the CBCT is more difficult. Further investigation is necessary to determine the reason for the shift differences and to evaluate the benefits and risks of CBCT in this setting.
PURPOSE: To review our initial clinical experience with image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for prostate bed localization in post-radical prostatectomy (RP) patients and to compare shift and acute toxicity results to our previously published IGRT experience with daily kV planar imaging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) who had image guidance using either CBCT (n = 23) or kV planar imaging (n = 27) following RP were analyzed. Shifts were recorded in anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right axes. Total error was defined as the shift from initial setup based on skin markings to isocenter. Prostate bed motion (PBM) was defined as the change in prostate bed position relative to bones. Acute toxicity was graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group morbidity criteria. RESULTS:Total error (TE) was measured in 752 CBCTs and 725 kV planar image pairs. PBM was measured in 585 CBCTs and 384 kV planar image pairs. The average magnitudes of TE and PBM in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right axes were greater with kV planar imaging compared to CBCT. Frequencies of acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (13% vs 7%, P = .7) and genitourinary (9% vs 11%, P = 1.0) were similar for CBCT and kV planar imaging patients. No toxicities greater than grade 2 were seen. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that although the magnitudes of TE and PBM were larger with kV planar compared to CBCT, the levels of acute toxicity were acceptable and comparable between the two. The reasons for the differences are unclear, but we postulate that discernment of the prostate bed on the CBCT is more difficult. Further investigation is necessary to determine the reason for the shift differences and to evaluate the benefits and risks of CBCT in this setting.
Authors: Ronaldo Cavalieri; Hiram A Gay; Jingxia Liu; Maria C Ferreira; Helvecio C Mota; Claudio H Sibata; Ron R Allison Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Linda J Bell; Jennifer Cox; Thomas Eade; Marianne Rinks; Alan Herschtal; Andrew Kneebone Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Florent Vilotte; Mickael Antoine; Maxime Bobin; Igor Latorzeff; Stéphane Supiot; Pierre Richaud; Laurence Thomas; Nicolas Leduc; Stephane Guérif; Jone Iriondo-Alberdi; Renaud de Crevoisier; Paul Sargos Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 6.244
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