Kiran A Kumar1, Tianming Wu1, Nathan Tonlaar1, Christopher Stepaniak1, Kamil M Yenice1, Stanley L Liauw2. 1. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: sliauw@radonc.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine whether clinically significant fiducial marker migration occurs immediately after prostatic implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred patients with transperineal (n = 39) or transrectal (n = 61) placement of 3 gold fiducial markers underwent computed tomography scans on day 0 (after placement) and day 7 (at radiation planning). Each marker was marked as a point of interest in a treatment planning system. An automated point-based algorithm was then used to coregister the day 0 and day 7 images by matching the markers through rigid translations and rotations. The mean distance between fiducial pairs (d¯) was recorded to assess the degree of seed migration. Prostate contours were delineated, and the day 0 prostate volumes were uniformly expanded by 1, 3, and 5 mm. The percentage of the day 7 prostate volume covered by each day 0 prostate with expansion was calculated to assess whether prostate contours, if performed on day 0, would adequately cover the prostate on day 7. RESULTS: The average d¯ for all patients was 0.78 ± 0.45 mm; only 1 patient had d¯ > 2 mm. Placement technique, hormonal therapy, prostate size, and marker distance from the capsule were not associated with d¯ (P > .05). The mean percentages of day 7 prostate volumes covered by the day 0 prostate plus 1, 3, and 5 mm were 98.3%, 99.8%, and 100%, respectively. With an expansion of 3 mm, 98% of men had >95% of day 0 volume covered; with an expansion of 5 mm, 100% of men had 100% of the day 0 volume covered. CONCLUSIONS: There is minimal change in the relative positions of fiducial markers (average d¯ < 1.0 mm) 1 week after placement. A 1- to 3-mm expansion would account for the variation in seed position for the vast majority of cases. These results suggest that planning could be performed on the day of implantation without adverse consequence.
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine whether clinically significant fiducial marker migration occurs immediately after prostatic implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred patients with transperineal (n = 39) or transrectal (n = 61) placement of 3 gold fiducial markers underwent computed tomography scans on day 0 (after placement) and day 7 (at radiation planning). Each marker was marked as a point of interest in a treatment planning system. An automated point-based algorithm was then used to coregister the day 0 and day 7 images by matching the markers through rigid translations and rotations. The mean distance between fiducial pairs (d¯) was recorded to assess the degree of seed migration. Prostate contours were delineated, and the day 0 prostate volumes were uniformly expanded by 1, 3, and 5 mm. The percentage of the day 7 prostate volume covered by each day 0 prostate with expansion was calculated to assess whether prostate contours, if performed on day 0, would adequately cover the prostate on day 7. RESULTS: The average d¯ for all patients was 0.78 ± 0.45 mm; only 1 patient had d¯ > 2 mm. Placement technique, hormonal therapy, prostate size, and marker distance from the capsule were not associated with d¯ (P > .05). The mean percentages of day 7 prostate volumes covered by the day 0 prostate plus 1, 3, and 5 mm were 98.3%, 99.8%, and 100%, respectively. With an expansion of 3 mm, 98% of men had >95% of day 0 volume covered; with an expansion of 5 mm, 100% of men had 100% of the day 0 volume covered. CONCLUSIONS: There is minimal change in the relative positions of fiducial markers (average d¯ < 1.0 mm) 1 week after placement. A 1- to 3-mm expansion would account for the variation in seed position for the vast majority of cases. These results suggest that planning could be performed on the day of implantation without adverse consequence.
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-03-20