A van Nunen1, P P G van der Toorn2, T C G Budiharto2, D Schuring2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: aniek.v.nunen@catharinaziekenhuis.nl. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to quantify the OAR dose for different position correction strategies, and to determine which strategy is most optimal for treating patients on the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 30 patients, four different treatment plans were made reflecting different correction strategies: online correction on bony anatomy; offline correction on bony anatomy; online correction on the prostate fiducials; using 1 cm margins around both CTVs. The dose to the PTVs and OARs was quantified and a pairwise statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the dose to the PTVs, ensuring that any OAR sparing is not caused by differences in PTV coverage. Dose to the rectum and anal canal was lowest when applying an online correction on prostate fiducials, although the total PTV volume was higher. Dose to the small bowel bag and femoral heads was slightly higher compared to online correction on bony structures, but well within clinically acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Although the total PTV volume is higher when applying an online correction on the prostate, this strategy leads to the most optimal sparing of relevant OARs, at the cost of a slightly higher dose to the femoral heads and small bowel bag.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to quantify the OAR dose for different position correction strategies, and to determine which strategy is most optimal for treating patients on the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 30 patients, four different treatment plans were made reflecting different correction strategies: online correction on bony anatomy; offline correction on bony anatomy; online correction on the prostate fiducials; using 1 cm margins around both CTVs. The dose to the PTVs and OARs was quantified and a pairwise statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the dose to the PTVs, ensuring that any OAR sparing is not caused by differences in PTV coverage. Dose to the rectum and anal canal was lowest when applying an online correction on prostate fiducials, although the total PTV volume was higher. Dose to the small bowel bag and femoral heads was slightly higher compared to online correction on bony structures, but well within clinically acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Although the total PTV volume is higher when applying an online correction on the prostate, this strategy leads to the most optimal sparing of relevant OARs, at the cost of a slightly higher dose to the femoral heads and small bowel bag.