PURPOSE: To compare the potential benefits of continuous monitoring of prostate position and intervention (CMI) using 2-mm displacement thresholds during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment to those of a conventional image-guided procedure involving single localization prior to treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-nine patients accrued to a prostate SBRT dose escalation protocol were implanted with radiofrequency transponder beacons. The planning target volume (PTV) margin was 5 mm in all directions, except for 3 mm in the posterior direction. The prostate was kept within 2 mm of its planned position by the therapists halting dose delivery and, if necessary, correcting the couch position. We computed the number, type, and time required for interventions and where the prostate would have been during dose delivery had there been, instead, a single image-guided setup procedure prior to each treatment. Distributions of prostate displacements were computed as a function of time. RESULTS: After the initial setup, 1.7 interventions per fraction were required, with a concomitant increase in time for dose delivery of approximately 65 seconds. Small systematic drifts in prostate position in the posterior and inferior directions were observed in the study patients. Without CMI, intrafractional motion would have resulted in approximately 10% of patients having a delivered dose that did not meet our clinical coverage requirement, that is, a PTV D95 of >90%. The posterior PTV margin required for 95% of the dose to be delivered with the target positioned within the PTV was computed as a function of time. The margin necessary was found to increase by 2 mm every 5 minutes, starting from the time of the imaging procedure. CONCLUSIONS: CMI using a tight 2-mm displacement threshold was not only feasible but was found to deliver superior PTV coverage compared with the conventional image-guided procedure in the SBRT setting.
PURPOSE: To compare the potential benefits of continuous monitoring of prostate position and intervention (CMI) using 2-mm displacement thresholds during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment to those of a conventional image-guided procedure involving single localization prior to treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-nine patients accrued to a prostate SBRT dose escalation protocol were implanted with radiofrequency transponder beacons. The planning target volume (PTV) margin was 5 mm in all directions, except for 3 mm in the posterior direction. The prostate was kept within 2 mm of its planned position by the therapists halting dose delivery and, if necessary, correcting the couch position. We computed the number, type, and time required for interventions and where the prostate would have been during dose delivery had there been, instead, a single image-guided setup procedure prior to each treatment. Distributions of prostate displacements were computed as a function of time. RESULTS: After the initial setup, 1.7 interventions per fraction were required, with a concomitant increase in time for dose delivery of approximately 65 seconds. Small systematic drifts in prostate position in the posterior and inferior directions were observed in the study patients. Without CMI, intrafractional motion would have resulted in approximately 10% of patients having a delivered dose that did not meet our clinical coverage requirement, that is, a PTV D95 of >90%. The posterior PTV margin required for 95% of the dose to be delivered with the target positioned within the PTV was computed as a function of time. The margin necessary was found to increase by 2 mm every 5 minutes, starting from the time of the imaging procedure. CONCLUSIONS: CMI using a tight 2-mm displacement threshold was not only feasible but was found to deliver superior PTV coverage compared with the conventional image-guided procedure in the SBRT setting.
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: Stefan Gerlach; Ivo Kuhlemann; Floris Ernst; Christoph Fürweger; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stefan Gerlach; Ivo Kuhlemann; Philipp Jauer; Ralf Bruder; Floris Ernst; Christoph Fürweger; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Paul J Keall; Caterina Brighi; Carri Glide-Hurst; Gary Liney; Paul Z Y Liu; Suzanne Lydiard; Chiara Paganelli; Trang Pham; Shanshan Shan; Alison C Tree; Uulke A van der Heide; David E J Waddington; Brendan Whelan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 65.011
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: Lin Su; Iulian Iordachita; Yin Zhang; Junghoon Lee; Sook Kien Ng; Juan Jackson; Ted Hooker; John Wong; Joseph M Herman; H Tutkun Sen; Peter Kazanzides; Muyinatu A Lediju Bell; Chen Yang; Kai Ding Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 2.102