Maud Jaccard1, Stefanie Ehrbar2, Raymond Miralbell3, Tobias Hagen2, Nikolaos Koutsouvelis4, Per Poulsen5, Michel Rouzaud4, Stephanie Tanadini-Lang2, Pelagia Tsoutsou6, Matthias Guckenberger2, Thomas Zilli7. 1. Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: MJaccard@genolier.net. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland; Radiation Oncology, Teknon Oncologic Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Oncology and Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 6. Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: Thomas.Zilli@hcuge.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To reconstruct the dose delivered during single-fraction urethra-sparing prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) accounting for intrafraction motion monitored by intraprostatic electromagnetic transponders (EMT). METHODS: We analyzed data of 15 patients included in the phase I/II "ONE SHOT" trial and treated with a single fraction of 19 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and 17 Gy to the urethra planning risk volume. During delivery, prostate motion was tracked with implanted EMT. SBRT was interrupted when a 3-mm threshold was trespassed and corrected unless the offset was transient. Motion-encoded reconstructed (MER) plans were obtained by splitting the original plans into multiple sub-beams with isocenter shifts based on recorded EMT positions, mimicking prostate motion during treatment. We analyzed intrafraction motion and compared MER to planned doses. RESULTS: The median EMT motion range (±SD) during delivery was 0.26 ± 0.09, 0.22 ± 0.14 and 0.18 ± 0.10 cm in the antero-posterior, supero-inferior, and left-right axes, respectively. Treatment interruptions were needed for 8 patients because of target motion beyond limits in the antero-posterior (n = 6) and/or supero-inferior directions (n = 4). Comparing MER vs. original plan there was a median relative dose difference of -1.9% (range, -7.9 to -1.0%) and of +0.5% (-0.3-1.7%) for PTV D98% and D2%, respectively. The clinical target volume remained sufficiently covered with a median D98% difference of -0.3% (-1.6-0.5%). Bladder and rectum dosimetric parameters showed significant differences between original and MER plans, but mostly remained within acceptable limits. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion was minimal for target coverage for single-fraction prostate SBRT with real-time electromagnetic tracking combined with beam gating.
PURPOSE: To reconstruct the dose delivered during single-fraction urethra-sparing prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) accounting for intrafraction motion monitored by intraprostatic electromagnetic transponders (EMT). METHODS: We analyzed data of 15 patients included in the phase I/II "ONE SHOT" trial and treated with a single fraction of 19 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and 17 Gy to the urethra planning risk volume. During delivery, prostate motion was tracked with implanted EMT. SBRT was interrupted when a 3-mm threshold was trespassed and corrected unless the offset was transient. Motion-encoded reconstructed (MER) plans were obtained by splitting the original plans into multiple sub-beams with isocenter shifts based on recorded EMT positions, mimicking prostate motion during treatment. We analyzed intrafraction motion and compared MER to planned doses. RESULTS: The median EMT motion range (±SD) during delivery was 0.26 ± 0.09, 0.22 ± 0.14 and 0.18 ± 0.10 cm in the antero-posterior, supero-inferior, and left-right axes, respectively. Treatment interruptions were needed for 8 patients because of target motion beyond limits in the antero-posterior (n = 6) and/or supero-inferior directions (n = 4). Comparing MER vs. original plan there was a median relative dose difference of -1.9% (range, -7.9 to -1.0%) and of +0.5% (-0.3-1.7%) for PTV D98% and D2%, respectively. The clinical target volume remained sufficiently covered with a median D98% difference of -0.3% (-1.6-0.5%). Bladder and rectum dosimetric parameters showed significant differences between original and MER plans, but mostly remained within acceptable limits. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion was minimal for target coverage for single-fraction prostate SBRT with real-time electromagnetic tracking combined with beam gating.
Authors: Michael Oertel; Niklas Benedikt Pepper; Martina Schmitz; Jan Carl Becker; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Casper Gammelmark Muurholm; Thomas Ravkilde; Robin De Roover; Simon Skouboe; Rune Hansen; Wouter Crijns; Tom Depuydt; Per R Poulsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.506