Planning Target Volume Margin Assessment Using Daily Cone Beam Computed Tomography Image Verification in Prostate Cancer Patients

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amrita School of Medicine, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, AIMS, Ponekkara P.O., Kochi, Kerala, Pin Code 682041

2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Amrita School of Medicine, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, AIMS Ponekkara PO, Kochi, Kerala, Pincode 682041

3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amrita School of Medicine, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, AIMS, Ponekkara PO, Kochi, Kerala, Pin code 682041.

4 Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Safety Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University Kochi, Kerala, 682041 India

5 Department of Radiation Oncology Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University Kochi, Kerala, 682041 India

Abstract

Introduction: Conformal radiation techniques are widely used in prostate cancer treatment as it improves the therapeutic ratio. However, inter- and intra-fraction variations remain challenging, which reflects on the planning target volume (PTV) margin. This study aimed to determine the benefit of daily Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in reducing the  PTV margin.
Material and Methods: 51 patients over 3 years were included in the study.  PTV was obtained by applying 8mm in left-right (LR) and anterior (A), 5mm in posterior (P) and 8mm in superior-inferior (SI) directions of clinical target volumes (CTV). Pelvic bones of CBCT were matched with the planning CT scan and manually adjusted with soft tissue, assessing the total inter-fraction error. Values were registered in left-right (X), superior-inferior (Y), and anterior-posterior (Z) directions.
Results: The median age was 71 years and  84.3% were in the high-risk group. The mean inter-fraction error (Mp) was obtained in all three principal axes (x, y, z). The majority had shifts ≤ 0.3cm. None recorded a shift >1cm. The Random errors were 0.44cm in LR (X), 0.36cm in SI (Y) and 0.40cm in AP (Z) directions. The systematic errors were 0.05cm in LR (X), 0.04cm in SI (Y) and 0.04cm in AP (Z) directions. The PTV margin was calculated using van Herk’s formula and obtained as 0.68cm.
Conclusion: Routine use of CBCT significantly reduces the random and systematic errors and ensures safer dose escalation with reduced PTV margin.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Zelefsky M, Leibel S, Gaudin P, Kutcher G, Fleshner N, Venkatramen E, et al. Dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998;41(3):491–
  2. Yu T, Zhang Q, Zheng T, Shi H, Liu Y, Feng S, et al. The Effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Literatures. PLoS One. 2016;11(5): e0154499.
  3. Storey MR, Pollack A, Zagars G, Smith L, Antolak J, Rosen I. Complications from radiotherapy dose escalation in prostate cancer: preliminary results of a randomized trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2000;48(3):635–
  4. Kupelian PA, Langen KM, Zeidan OA, Meeks SL, Willoughby TR, Wagner TH, et al. Daily variations in delivered doses in patients treated with radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006;66(3):876-82.
  5. Pearson D, Gill SK, Campbell N, Reddy K. Dosimetric and volumetric changes in the rectum and bladder in patients receiving CBCT-guided prostate IMRT: analysis based on daily CBCT dose calculation. J ApplClin Med Phys. 2016;17(6):107-17.
  6. Ghadjar P, Fiorino C, afRosenschöld PM, Pinkawa M, Zilli T, van Der Heide UA. ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline on the use of image guided radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2019;141:5-13.
  7. Van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque JV. The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2000;47(4):1121-35.
  8. Wang G, Wang WL, Liu YQ, Dong HM, Hu YX. Positioning error and expanding margins of planning target volume with kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:1981-8.
  9. Hirose TA, Arimura H, Shibayama Y, Fukunaga JI, Ohga S. Effect of accounting for interfractional CTV shape variations in PTV margins on prostate cancer radiation treatment plans. PhysicaMedica. 2018;54:66-76.
  10. Rozendaal RA, Mijnheer BJ, Hamming-Vrieze O, Mans A, Van Herk M. Impact of daily anatomical changes on EPID-based in vivo dosimetry of VMAT treatments of head-and-neck cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2015;116(1):70-4.
  11. Gill SK, Reddy K, Campbell N, Chen C, Pearson D. Determination of optimal PTV margin for patients receiving CBCT-guided prostate IMRT: comparative analysis based on CBCT dose calculation with four different margins. J ApplClin Med Phys. 2015;16(6):252–
  12. Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB, Bruner DW, Low D, Swanson GP, Shah AB, D’Souza DP, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA. Randomized phase III noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2325-32.
  13. Rosenthal SA, Hu C, Sartor O, Gomella LG, Amin MB, Purdy J, Michalski JM, Garzotto MG, Pervez N, Balogh AG, Rodrigues GB. Effect of chemotherapy with docetaxel with androgen suppression and radiotherapy for localized high-risk prostate cancer: the randomized phase III NRG oncology RTOG 0521 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019 May 10;37(14):1159-68.
  14. Stroom JC, Heijmen BJ. Geometrical uncertainties, radiotherapy planning margins, and the ICRU-62 report. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64(1):75-83
  15. Osei EK, Jiang R, Barnett R, Fleming K, Panjwani D. Evaluation of daily online setup errors and organ displacement uncertainty during conformal radiation treatment of the prostate. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):49-61.
  16. Van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. InSeminars in radiation oncology 2004;14(1):52-64. WB Saunders.
  17. Park HK, Cho JH, Kim S. Dosimetric Effects of Rotational Setup Error in Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy on Brain Tumor Patients. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics/Majallah-I Fīzīk-I Pizishkī-i Īrān. 2019;16(2).
  18. Remeijer P, Geerlof E, Ploeger L, Gilhuijs K, van Herk M, Lebesque JV. 3-D portal image analysis in clinical practice: an evaluation of 2-D and 3-D analysis techniques as applied to 30 prostate cancer patients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2000;46(5):1281-90.
  19. Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, Amols H. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176(4):1415-9.
  20. Teoh M, Clark CH, Wood K, Whitaker S, Nisbet A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1007):967-96.
  21. Jereczek-Fossa BA, Orecchia R. Evidence-based radiation oncology: definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2007;84(2):197-215.
  22. de Crevoisier R, Bayar MA, Pommier P, Muracciole X, Pêne F, Dudouet P, et al. Daily Versus Weekly Prostate Cancer Image Guided Radiation Therapy: Phase 3 Multicenter Randomized Trial. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 2018;102(5):1420-9.
  23. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH. Cone‐beam computed tomography with a flat‐panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2000;27(6):1311-23.
  24. Ingrosso G, Miceli R, Ponti E, Lancia A, di Cristino D, de Pasquale F, et al. Interfraction prostate displacement during image-guided radiotherapy using intraprostatic fiducial markers and a cone-beam computed tomography system: A volumetric off-line analysis in relation to the variations of rectal and bladder volumes. J Cancer Res Ther. 2019;15(Suppl 1):S69-75.
  25. Hirose K, Sato M, Hatayama Y, Kawaguchi H, Komai F, Sohma M, et al. The potential failure risk of the cone-beam computed tomography-based planning target volume margin definition for prostate image-guided radiotherapy based on a prospective single-institutional hybrid analysis. RadiatOncol. 2018;13:1-4.
  26. Guckenberger M, Pohl F, Baier K, Meyer J, Vordermark D, Flentje M. Adverse effect of a distended rectum in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning of prostate cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2006;79(1):59-64.
  27. Pinkawa M, Siluschek J, Gagel B, Demirel C, Asadpour B, Holy R, et al. Influence of the initial rectal distension on posterior margins in primary and postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2006;81(3):284-90.
  28. Fiorino C, Di Muzio N, Broggi S, Cozzarini C, Maggiulli E, AlongiF, et al. Evidence of limited motion of the prostate by carefully emptying the rectum as assessed by daily MVCT image guidance with helical tomotherapy. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 2008;71(2):611-7.
  29. Stasi M, Munoz F, Fiorino C, Pasquino M, Baiotto B, Marini P, et al. Emptying the rectum before treatment delivery limits the variations of rectal dose–volume parameters during 3DCRT of prostate cancer. RadiotherOncol. 2006;80(3):363-70.
  30. Palombarini M, Mengoli S, Fantazzini P, Cadioli C, DegliEsposti C, Frezza GP. Analysis of inter-fraction setup errors and organ motion by daily kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer. RadiatOncol. 2012;7:1-8.
  31. Hanley J, Lumley MA, Mageras GS, Sun J, Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, et al. Measurement of patient positioning errors in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 1997;37(2):435-44.
  32. Nederveen AJ, van der Heide UA, Dehnad H, van Moorselaar RJ, Hofman P, Lagendijk JJ. Measurements and clinical consequences of prostate motion during a radiotherapy fraction. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 2002;53(1):206-14.
  33. Antolak JA, Rosen II. Planning target volumes for radiotherapy: how much margin is needed?.Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 1999;44(5):1165-70.
  34. Stroom JC, de Boer HC, Huizenga H, Visser AG. Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys1. 1999;43(4):905-19.
  35. Goitein M, Schultheiss TE. Strategies for treating possible tumor extension: some theoretical considerations. Int J RadiatOncolBiolPhys. 1985;11(8):1519-28.
  36. Fontenla E, Pelizzari CA, Chen GT. Implications of 3-dimensional target shape and motion in aperture design. Med Phys.1996;23(8):1431-41.
  37. Paluska P, Hanus J, Sefrova J, Rouskova L, Grepl J, Jansa J, et al. Utilization of cone beam CT for reconstruction of dose distribution delivered in image-guided radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma - bony landmark setup compared to fiducial markers setup. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(3):99-112.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 22, Issue 1
January and February 2025
Pages 50-55

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 23 June 2023
  • Accept Date: 02 December 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics