Advertisement

Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer using 3 different techniques: localization data of 186 patients

Abstract

Aims and Background

This study evaluates 3 different imaging modalities—ultrasound (US), stereoscopic X-ray imaging of implanted markers (Visicoils) (X-ray), and kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)—to assess interfraction and intrafraction localization error during conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer.

Methods and Study design

The study population consisted of 186 consecutive prostate cancer patients treated with an image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) hypofractionated protocol using 3 techniques: 32 with X-ray, 30 with CBCT, and 124 with US. Treatment dose of 70.2 Gy was delivered in 26 fractions with a conformal dynamic arcs technique. Interfraction prostate localization errors were determined for the 3 techniques. Moreover, interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion in terms of translations and rotations, as well as residual errors, were determined with X-ray.

Results

The systematic and random components of the prostate localization errors were as follows: (1) with X-ray 3.0 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.7, 1.8 ± 2.3 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) directions and 1.8° ± 1.2°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, 2.7° ± 3.1°, for the yaw, roll, and pitch rotations; (2) with CBCT 3.5 ± 4.2, 3.3 ± 3.3, 2.5 ± 3.1 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions; (3) with US 3.7 ± 4.7, 3.4 ± 4.3, 2.3 ± 3.5 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions. Residual errors with X-ray were less than 1 mm in all directions. Intrafraction prostate motion of less than 0.5 mm in LR and of the order of 1 mm in AP and SI directions was found. This led to a significant reduction of the margins, potentially important for dose escalation studies.

Conclusions

Daily on-line IGRT with stereoscopic X-ray imaging allowed a consistent PTV margin reduction considering residual interfraction prostate localization error and intrafraction motion. X-ray offers the best compromise among accuracy, reliability, dose to the patient, and time investment for daily IGRT treatment of prostate.

Tumori 2015; 101(3): 273 - 280

Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

DOI:10.5301/tj.5000322

Authors

Cristina Garibaldi, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa, Dario Zerini, Raffaella Cambria, Annamaria Ferrari, Flavia Serafini, Federica Cattani, Barbara Tagaste, Cristiana Fodor, Rosa Luraschi, Roberto Orecchia

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: None.
Conflict of interest: None.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

Affiliations

  • Medical Physics Unit, European Institute of Oncology, Milan - Italy
  • Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan - Italy
  • Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan - Italy
  • Department of Radiation Oncology, Sant’Anna Hospital, Como - Italy
  • Bioengineering Unit, Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Pavia - Italy

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.