Peter Wust1, Marc Joswig2, Reinhold Graf2, Dirk Böhmer2, Marcus Beck2, Thomasz Barelkowski2, Volker Budach2, Pirus Ghadjar2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. peter.wust@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For high-dose radiation therapy (RT) of prostate cancer, image-guided (IGRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) approaches are standard. Less is known regarding comparisons of different IGRT techniques and the resulting residual errors, as well as regarding their influences on dose distributions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 58 patients who received tomotherapy-based RT up to 84 Gy for high-risk prostate cancer underwent IGRT based either on daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) alone (n = 43) or the additional use of gold markers (n = 15) under routine conditions. Planned Adaptive (Accuray Inc., Madison, WI, USA) software was used for elaborated offline analysis to quantify residual interfractional prostate positioning errors, along with systematic and random errors and the resulting safety margins after both IGRT approaches. Dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and exposition of organs at risk (OAR) were also analyzed and compared. Interfractional as well as intrafractional displacements were determined. RESULTS: Particularly in the vertical direction, residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using the gold marker-based approach, but dosimetric differences were moderate and the clinical relevance relatively small. Intrafractional prostate motion proved to be quite high, with displacements of 1-3 mm; however, these did not result in additional dosimetric impairments. CONCLUSION: Residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using gold marker-based IGRT; however, this resulted in only slightly different final dose distributions. Therefore, daily MVCT-based IGRT without markers might be a valid alternative.
INTRODUCTION: For high-dose radiation therapy (RT) of prostate cancer, image-guided (IGRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) approaches are standard. Less is known regarding comparisons of different IGRT techniques and the resulting residual errors, as well as regarding their influences on dose distributions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 58 patients who received tomotherapy-based RT up to 84 Gy for high-risk prostate cancer underwent IGRT based either on daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) alone (n = 43) or the additional use of gold markers (n = 15) under routine conditions. Planned Adaptive (Accuray Inc., Madison, WI, USA) software was used for elaborated offline analysis to quantify residual interfractional prostate positioning errors, along with systematic and random errors and the resulting safety margins after both IGRT approaches. Dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and exposition of organs at risk (OAR) were also analyzed and compared. Interfractional as well as intrafractional displacements were determined. RESULTS: Particularly in the vertical direction, residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using the gold marker-based approach, but dosimetric differences were moderate and the clinical relevance relatively small. Intrafractional prostate motion proved to be quite high, with displacements of 1-3 mm; however, these did not result in additional dosimetric impairments. CONCLUSION: Residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using gold marker-based IGRT; however, this resulted in only slightly different final dose distributions. Therefore, daily MVCT-based IGRT without markers might be a valid alternative.
Authors: Michel J Ghilezan; David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Marcel Van Herk; Anil Shetty; Michael B Sharpe; Syed Zafar Jafri; Frank A Vicini; Richard C Matter; Donald S Brabbins; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M J Zelefsky; Z Fuks; L Happersett; H J Lee; C C Ling; C M Burman; M Hunt; T Wolfe; E S Venkatraman; A Jackson; M Skwarchuk; S A Leibel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Nicole Gwerder; Axel Madlung; Frank Behrensmeier; George N Thalmann; Roberto Mini; Daniel M Aebersold Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Avilash K Cramer; Amanu G Haile; Sanja Ognjenovic; Tulsee S Doshi; William Matthew Reilly; Katherine E Rubinstein; Nima Nabavizadeh; Thuan Nguyen; Lu Z Meng; Martin Fuss; James A Tanyi; Arthur Y Hung Journal: BMC Med Phys Date: 2013-09-23
Authors: Tomasz Barelkowski; Peter Wust; David Kaul; Sebastian Zschaeck; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Volker Budach; Pirus Ghadjar; Marcus Beck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.621
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
Authors: Mona Splinter; Tilman Bostel; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 6.244