Vivek Verma1, Shifeng Chen2, Sumin Zhou1, Charles A Enke1, Andrew O Wahl3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA. awahl@unmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Using high-quality CT-on-rails imaging, the daily motion of the prostate bed clinical target volume (PB-CTV) based on consensus Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) definitions (instead of surgical clips/fiducials) was studied. It was assessed whether PB motion in the superior portion of PB-CTV (SUP-CTV) differed from the inferior PB-CTV (INF-CTV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight pT2-3bN0-1M0 patients underwent postprostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy, totaling 300 fractions. INF-CTV and SUP-CTV were defined as PB-CTV located inferior and superior to the superior border of the pubic symphysis, respectively. Daily pretreatment CT-on-rails images were compared to the planning CT in the left-right (LR), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. Two parameters were defined: "total PB-CTV motion" represented total shifts from skin tattoos to RTOG-defined anatomic areas; "PB-CTV target motion" (performed for both SUP-CTV and INF-CTV) represented shifts from bone to RTOG-defined anatomic areas (i. e., subtracting shifts from skin tattoos to bone). RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation, SD) total PB-CTV motion was -1.5 (± 6.0), 1.3 (± 4.5), and 3.7 (± 5.7) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) PB-CTV target motion was 0.2 (±1.4), 0.3 (±2.4), and 0 (±3.1) mm in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) INF-CTV target motion was 0.1 (± 2.8), 0.5 (± 2.2), and 0.2 (± 2.5) mm, and SUP-CTV target motion was 0.3 (± 1.8), 0.5 (± 2.3), and 0 (± 5.0) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. No statistically significant differences between INF-CTV and SUP-CTV motion were present in any direction. CONCLUSION: There are no statistically apparent motion differences between SUP-CTV and INF-CTV. Current uniform planning target volume (PTV) margins are adequate to cover both portions of the CTV.
PURPOSE: Using high-quality CT-on-rails imaging, the daily motion of the prostate bed clinical target volume (PB-CTV) based on consensus Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) definitions (instead of surgical clips/fiducials) was studied. It was assessed whether PB motion in the superior portion of PB-CTV (SUP-CTV) differed from the inferior PB-CTV (INF-CTV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight pT2-3bN0-1M0 patients underwent postprostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy, totaling 300 fractions. INF-CTV and SUP-CTV were defined as PB-CTV located inferior and superior to the superior border of the pubic symphysis, respectively. Daily pretreatment CT-on-rails images were compared to the planning CT in the left-right (LR), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. Two parameters were defined: "total PB-CTV motion" represented total shifts from skin tattoos to RTOG-defined anatomic areas; "PB-CTV target motion" (performed for both SUP-CTV and INF-CTV) represented shifts from bone to RTOG-defined anatomic areas (i. e., subtracting shifts from skin tattoos to bone). RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation, SD) total PB-CTV motion was -1.5 (± 6.0), 1.3 (± 4.5), and 3.7 (± 5.7) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) PB-CTV target motion was 0.2 (±1.4), 0.3 (±2.4), and 0 (±3.1) mm in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) INF-CTV target motion was 0.1 (± 2.8), 0.5 (± 2.2), and 0.2 (± 2.5) mm, and SUP-CTV target motion was 0.3 (± 1.8), 0.5 (± 2.3), and 0 (± 5.0) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. No statistically significant differences between INF-CTV and SUP-CTV motion were present in any direction. CONCLUSION: There are no statistically apparent motion differences between SUP-CTV and INF-CTV. Current uniform planning target volume (PTV) margins are adequate to cover both portions of the CTV.
Authors: B S Teh; W Y Mai; M E Augspurger; B M Uhl; J McGary; L Dong; W H Grant; H H Lu; S Y Woo; L S Carpenter; J K Chiu; E B Butler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Omar A Zeidan; Sanford L Meeks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Willie Underwood; James Jackson; John T Wei; Rodney Dunn; Edmond Baker; Sonya Demonner; David P Wood Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kirsty L Wiltshire; Kristy K Brock; Masoom A Haider; Daniel Zwahlen; Vickie Kong; Elisa Chan; Joanne Moseley; Andrew Bayley; Charles Catton; Peter W M Chung; Mary Gospodarowicz; Michael Milosevic; Andrew Kneebone; Padraig Warde; Cynthia Ménard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M J Zelefsky; L Happersett; S A Leibel; C M Burman; L Schwartz; A P Dicker; G J Kutcher; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kitty Huang; David A Palma; Danielle Scott; Danielle McGregor; Stewart Gaede; Slav Yartsev; Glenn Bauman; Alexander V Louie; George Rodrigues Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ken Kang-Hsin Wang; Neha Vapiwala; Curtiland Deville; John P Plastaras; Ryan Scheuermann; Haibo Lin; Voika Bar Ad; Zelig Tochner; Stefan Both Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Colleen Lawton; Issam El Naqa; Mark Ritter; Elizabeth O'Meara; Michael J Seider; W Robert Lee; Seth A Rosenthal; Thomas Pisansky; Charles Catton; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony L Zietman; Walter R Bosch; Howard Sandler; Mark K Buyyounouski; Cynthia Ménard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mona Splinter; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tilman Bostel; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Christian Thieke; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Tilman Bostel; Ilias Sachpazidis; Mona Splinter; Nina Bougatf; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Dimos Baltas; Jürgen Debus; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 6.244