Assessment of planning target volume margins for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the prostate gland: role of daily inter- and intrafraction motion

James A Tanyi, Tongming He, Paige A Summers, Ruth G Mburu, Catherine M Kato, Stephen M Rhodes, Arthur Y Hung, Martin Fuss
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2010 December 1, 78 (5): 1579-85

PURPOSE: To determine planning target volume margins for prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy based on inter- and intrafraction motion using four daily localization techniques: three-point skin mark alignment, volumetric imaging with bony landmark registration, volumetric imaging with implanted fiducial marker registration, and implanted electromagnetic transponders (beacons) detection.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients who underwent definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer formed the basis of this study. Each patient was implanted with three electromagnetic transponders and underwent a course of 39 treatment fractions. Daily localization was based on three-point skin mark alignment followed by transponder detection and patient repositioning. Transponder positioning was verified by volumetric imaging with cone-beam computed tomography of the pelvis. Relative motion between the prostate gland and bony anatomy was quantified by offline analyses of daily cone-beam computed tomography. Intratreatment organ motion was monitored continuously by the Calypso® System for quantification of intrafraction setup error.

RESULTS: As expected, setup error (that is, inter- plus intrafraction motion, unless otherwise stated) was largest with skin mark alignment, requiring margins of 7.5 mm, 11.4 mm, and 16.3 mm, in the lateral (LR), longitudinal (SI), and vertical (AP) directions, respectively. Margin requirements accounting for intrafraction motion were smallest for transponder detection localization techniques, requiring margins of 1.4 mm (LR), 2.6 mm (SI), and 2.3 mm (AP). Bony anatomy alignment required 2.1 mm (LR), 9.4 mm (SI), and 10.5 mm (AP), whereas image-guided marker alignment required 2.8 mm (LR), 3.7 mm (SI), and 3.2 mm (AP). No marker migration was observed in the cohort.

CONCLUSION: Clinically feasible, rapid, and reliable tools such as the electromagnetic transponder detection system for pretreatment target localization and, subsequently, intratreatment target location monitoring allow clinicians to reduce irradiated volumes and facilitate safe dose escalation, where appropriate.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"