M Roch1, A Zapatero2, P Castro3, D Hernández3, M Chevalier4, F García-Vicente5. 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. Medical Physics Group, Radiology Department, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Medical Physics, Hospital Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact on hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy of two geometric uncertainty sources: rectum and bladder filling and intrafractional prostate motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 544 images (375 pre-treatment cone-beam CT [CBCT] and 169 post-treatment CBCT) from 15 prostate adenocarcinoma patients. We recalculated the dose on each pre-treatment CBCT once the positioning errors were corrected. We also recalculated two dose distributions on each post-treatment CBCT, either using or not intrafractional motion correction. A correlation analysis was performed between CBCT-based dose and rectum and bladder filling as well as intrafraction prostate displacements. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between administered and planned rectal doses. However, we observed an increase in bladder dose due to a lower bladder filling in 66% of treatment fractions. These differences were reduced at the end of the fraction since the lower bladder volume was compensated by the filling during the treatment session. A statistically significant reduction in target volume coverage was observed in 27% of treatment sessions and was correlated with intrafractional prostate motion in sagittal plane > 4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A better control of bladder filling is recommended to minimize the number of fractions in which the bladder volume is lower than planned. Fiducial mark tracking with a displacement threshold of 5 mm in any direction is recommended to ensure that the prescribed dose criteria are met.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact on hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy of two geometric uncertainty sources: rectum and bladder filling and intrafractional prostate motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 544 images (375 pre-treatment cone-beam CT [CBCT] and 169 post-treatment CBCT) from 15 prostate adenocarcinoma patients. We recalculated the dose on each pre-treatment CBCT once the positioning errors were corrected. We also recalculated two dose distributions on each post-treatment CBCT, either using or not intrafractional motion correction. A correlation analysis was performed between CBCT-based dose and rectum and bladder filling as well as intrafraction prostate displacements. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between administered and planned rectal doses. However, we observed an increase in bladder dose due to a lower bladder filling in 66% of treatment fractions. These differences were reduced at the end of the fraction since the lower bladder volume was compensated by the filling during the treatment session. A statistically significant reduction in target volume coverage was observed in 27% of treatment sessions and was correlated with intrafractional prostate motion in sagittal plane > 4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A better control of bladder filling is recommended to minimize the number of fractions in which the bladder volume is lower than planned. Fiducial mark tracking with a displacement threshold of 5 mm in any direction is recommended to ensure that the prescribed dose criteria are met.
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: A Zapatero; M Roch; D Büchser; P Castro; L Fernández-Banda; G Pozo; O Liñán; C Martin de Vidales; A Cruz-Conde; F García-Vicente Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Maria Thor; Joseph O Deasy; Rebecca Paulus; W Robert Lee; Mahul B Amin; Deborah W Bruner; Daniel A Low; Amit B Shah; Shawn C Malone; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; Elizabeth M Gore; Michele Albert; Thomas M Pisansky; Sergio L Faria; Yuhchyau Chen; Bridget F Koontz; Gregory P Swanson; Stephanie L Pugh; Howard M Sandler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 6.280
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