M Roch1, A Zapatero2, P Castro3, D Büchser4, L Pérez3, D Hernández3, C Ansón3, M Chevalier5, F García-Vicente6. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Hospital La Princesa, Health Research Institute IIS-IP, Diego de León 62, 28006, Madrid, Spain. maria.roch@salud.madrid.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital La Princesa, IIS-IP, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Hospital La Princesa, Health Research Institute IIS-IP, Diego de León 62, 28006, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. 5. Medical Physics Group, Radiology Department, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 6. Department of Medical Physics, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine the magnitude of the prostate intrafractional motion relative to bony pelvis anatomy, and to evaluate the relationship between this displacement and some clinical and anatomical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study consisted of 544 images (375 pre-treatment CBCT and 169 post-treatment CBCT) from 15 prostate adenocarcinoma patients that were used for intrafractional prostate motion determination. In addition, two radiation oncologists re-contoured the bladder and rectum on each CBCT according to the patient's anatomy of the day. ANOVA and correlation analysis followed by linear regression analysis were performed to identify clinical or anatomical variables that predict large prostate intrafractional motion. RESULTS: Prostate shift increased in patients with hormone therapy (p ≤ 0.02). The regression analysis showed that patients with large bladder intrafractional filling (p < 0.01) and a large bladder volume difference from planning CT were more likely to experience bigger longitudinal prostate motion (> 3 mm). Recommended bladder size values: anterior-posterior size ≤ 10 cm and anterior-posterior/cranio-caudal ratio ≤ 1.7, both parameters measured in the midsagittal prostate plane, were defined. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment margin should not be reduced for those patients who were treated with hormone therapy and/or whose rectum or bladder was far from complying the preparation protocol conditions.
BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine the magnitude of the prostate intrafractional motion relative to bony pelvis anatomy, and to evaluate the relationship between this displacement and some clinical and anatomical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study consisted of 544 images (375 pre-treatment CBCT and 169 post-treatment CBCT) from 15 prostate adenocarcinomapatients that were used for intrafractional prostate motion determination. In addition, two radiation oncologists re-contoured the bladder and rectum on each CBCT according to the patient's anatomy of the day. ANOVA and correlation analysis followed by linear regression analysis were performed to identify clinical or anatomical variables that predict large prostate intrafractional motion. RESULTS: Prostate shift increased in patients with hormone therapy (p ≤ 0.02). The regression analysis showed that patients with large bladder intrafractional filling (p < 0.01) and a large bladder volume difference from planning CT were more likely to experience bigger longitudinal prostate motion (> 3 mm). Recommended bladder size values: anterior-posterior size ≤ 10 cm and anterior-posterior/cranio-caudal ratio ≤ 1.7, both parameters measured in the midsagittal prostate plane, were defined. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment margin should not be reduced for those patients who were treated with hormone therapy and/or whose rectum or bladder was far from complying the preparation protocol conditions.
Authors: A R Padhani; V S Khoo; J Suckling; J E Husband; M O Leach; D P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dennis Mah; Gary Freedman; Bart Milestone; Alexandra Hanlon; Elizabeth Palacio; Theresa Richardson; Benjamin Movsas; Raj Mitra; Eric Horwitz; Gerald E Hanks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michel Ghilezan; Di Yan; Jian Liang; David Jaffray; John Wong; Alvaro Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Kirsten E I Deurloo; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Lambert J Zijp; Josien A de Bois; Peter J C M Nowak; Coen R N Rasch; Marcel van Herk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David Palma; Emily Vollans; Kerry James; Sandy Nakano; Vitali Moiseenko; Richard Shaffer; Michael McKenzie; James Morris; Karl Otto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gijsberta J van Londen; Matthew E Levy; Subashan Perera; Joel B Nelson; Susan L Greenspan Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 6.312