A randomized comparison of interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion with and without abdominal compression

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To quantify inter- and intrafraction prostate motion in a standard VacLok (VL) immobilization device or in the BodyFix (BF) system incorporating a compression element which may reduce abdominal movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients were randomly assigned to VL or BF. Interfraction prostate motion >3 mm was corrected pre-treatment. EPIs were taken daily at the start and end of the first and last treatment beams. Interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion were measured for centre of mass (COM) and individual markers. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in interfraction (p0.002) or intrafraction (p0.16) prostate motion with or without abdominal compression. Median intrafraction motion was slightly smaller than interfraction motion in the AP (7.0 mm vs. 7.6 mm) and SI direction (3.2 mm vs. 4.7 mm). The final image captured the maximal intrafraction displacement in only 40% of fractions. Our PTV incorporated >95% of total prostate motion. CONCLUSIONS: Intrafraction motion became the major source of error during radiotherapy after online correction of interfraction prostate motion. The addition of 120 mbar abdominal compression to custom pelvic immobilization influenced neither interfraction nor intrafraction prostate motion.     

Daily electronic portal imaging of implanted gold seed fiducials in patients undergoing radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure interfraction prostate bed motion, setup error, and total positioning error in 10 consecutive patients undergoing postprostatectomy radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Daily image-guided target localization and alignment using electronic portal imaging of gold seed fiducials implanted into the prostate bed under transrectal ultrasound guidance was used in 10 patients undergoing adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy. Prostate bed motion, setup error, and total positioning error were measured by analysis of gold seed fiducial location on the daily electronic portal images compared with the digitally reconstructed radiographs from the treatment-planning CT. RESULTS: Mean (+/- standard deviation) prostate bed motion was 0.3 +/- 0.9 mm, 0.4 +/- 2.4 mm, and -1.1 +/- 2.1 mm in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) axes, respectively. Mean set-up error was 0.1 +/- 4.5 mm, 1.1 +/- 3.9 mm, and -0.2 +/- 5.1 mm in the LR, SI, and AP axes, respectively. Mean total positioning error was 0.2 +/- 4.5 mm, 1.2 +/- 5.1 mm, and -0.3 +/- 4.5 mm in the LR, SI, and AP axes, respectively. Total positioning errors >5 mm occurred in 14.1%, 38.7%, and 28.2% of all fractions in the LR, SI, and AP axes, respectively. There was no significant migration of the gold marker seeds. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the use of daily image-guided target localization and alignment using electronic portal imaging of implanted gold seed fiducials as a valuable method to correct for interfraction target motion and to improve precision in the delivery of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.     

Assessment of residual error for online cone-beam CT-guided treatment of prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE: Kilovoltage cone-beam CT (CBCT) implemented on board a medical accelerator is available for image-guidance applications in our clinic. The objective of this work was to assess the magnitude and stability of the residual setup error associated with CBCT online-guided prostate cancer patient setup. Residual error pertains to the uncertainty in image registration, the limited mechanical accuracy, and the intrafraction motion during imaging and treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The residual error for CBCT online-guided correction was first determined in a phantom study. After online correction, the phantom residual error was determined by comparing megavoltage portal images acquired every 90 degrees to the corresponding digitally reconstructed radiographs. In the clinical study, 8 prostate cancer patients were implanted with three radiopaque markers made of high-winding coils. After positioning the patient using the skin marks, a CBCT scan was acquired and the setup error determined by fusing the coils on the CBCT and planning CT scans. The patient setup was then corrected by moving the couch accordingly. A second CBCT scan was acquired immediately after the correction to evaluate the residual target setup error. Intrafraction motion was evaluated by tracking the coils and the bony landmarks on kilovoltage radiographs acquired every 30 s between the two CBCT scans. Corrections based on soft-tissue registration were evaluated offline by aligning the prostate contours defined on both planning CT and CBCT images. RESULTS: For ideal rigid phantoms, CBCT image-guided treatment can usually achieve setup accuracy of 1 mm or better. For the patients, after CBCT correction, the target setup error was reduced in almost all cases and was generally within +/-1.5 mm. The image guidance process took 23-35 min, dictated by the computer speed and network configuration. The contribution of the intrafraction motion to the residual setup error was small, with a standard deviation of +/-0.9 mm. The average difference between the setup corrections obtained with coil and soft-tissue registration was greatest in the superoinferior direction and was equal to -1.1 +/- 2.9 mm. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the residual setup error measurements, the margin required after online CBCT correction for the patients enrolled in this study would be approximatively 3 mm and is considered to be a lower limit owing to the small intrafraction motion observed. The discrepancy between setup corrections derived from registration using coils or soft tissue can be due in part to the lack of complete three-dimensional information with the coils or to the difficulty in prostate delineation and requires further study.     

Intrafraction prostate motion during IMRT for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: Although the interfraction motion of the prostate has been previously studied through the use of fiducial markers, CT scans, and ultrasound-based systems, intrafraction motion is not well documented. In this report, the B-mode, Acquisition, and Targeting (BAT) ultrasound system was used to measure intrafraction prostate motion during 200 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) sessions for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty men receiving treatment with IMRT for clinically localized prostate cancer were selected for the study. Pre- and posttreatment BAT ultrasound alignment images were collected immediately before and after IMRT on 10 treatment days for a total of 400 BAT alignment procedures. Any ultrasound shifts of the prostate borders in relation to the planning CT scan were recorded in 3 dimensions: right-left (RL), anteroposterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI). Every ultrasound procedure was evaluated for image quality and alignment according to a 3-point grading scale. RESULTS: All the BAT images were judged to be of acceptable quality and alignment. The dominant directions of intrafraction prostate motion were anteriorly and superiorly. The mean magnitude of shifts (+/-SD) was 0.01 +/- 0.4 mm, 0.2 +/- 1.3 mm, and 0.1 +/- 1.0 mm in the left, anterior, and superior directions, respectively. The maximal range of motion occurred in the AP dimension, from 6.8 mm anteriorly to 4.6 mm posteriorly. The percentage of treatments during which prostate motion was judged to be 5 mm. The extent of intrafraction motion was much smaller than that of interfraction motion. Linear regression analysis showed very little correlation between the two types of motion (r = 0.014, 0.029, and 0.191, respectively) in the RL, AP, and SI directions. CONCLUSION: Using an ultrasound-based system, intrafraction prostate motion occurred predominantly in the anterior and superior directions, but was clinically insignificant. Intrafraction motion was much smaller than interfraction motion, and the two types of movement did not correlate.     

Analysis of setup uncertainties for extremity sarcoma patients using surface imaging

PurposeProper positioning of patients with extremity sarcoma tumors can be challenging. A surface imaging technique was utilized to quantify the setup uncertainties for sarcoma patients and to assess whether surface imaging could improve the accuracy of patient positioning.Methods and materialsPretreatment and posttreatment 3-dimensional (3D) surface images were obtained for 16 patients and 236 treatments. Offline surface registration was performed to quantify interfraction and intrafraction setup errors, and the required planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated. Setup differences were also assessed using root mean square (RMS) error analysis.ResultsFor intrafraction variation, the mean 3D vector shift was 2.1 mm, and the systematic and random errors were 1.3 mm or less. When using a reference surface from the first fraction, the mean interfraction setup variation (3D vector shift) was 7.6 mm. Systematic and random errors were 3-4 mm in each direction. When using a computed tomographic based reference surface, the mean 3D vector shift was 9.5 mm. Systematic and random errors ranged from 3.1 to 7.9 mm. The required PTV margins were 1.0 cm, 1.2 cm, and 1.3 cm in the anterior–posterior, superior–inferior, and lateral directions, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) RMS errors for the uncorrected position were 4.7 mm (1.9 mm) and were reduced to 2.2 mm (0.8 mm) and 1.7 mm (0.8 mm), for 4 degree of freedom (DOF) and 6 DOF surface alignment, respectively.ConclusionsIntrafraction motion is small. Interfraction motion can exceed typical PTV margins and daily imaging should be utilized to reduce setup variations. Surface imaging may reduce setup errors and is a feasible technique for daily image guidance.     

The effect of an endorectal balloon and off-line correction on the interfraction systematic and random prostate position variations: a comparative study

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of an endorectal balloon (ERB) and an off-line correction protocol on the day-to-day, interfraction prostate gland motion, in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 22 patients, irradiated with an ERB in situ (ERB group) and in 30 patients without an ERB (No-ERB group), prostate displacements were measured daily in three orthogonal directions with portal images. Implanted gold markers and an off-line electronic portal imaging correction protocol were used for prostate position verification and correction. Movie loops were analyzed to evaluate prostate motion and rectal filling variations. RESULTS: The off-line correction protocol reduced the systematic prostate displacements, equally for the ERB and No-ERB group, to 1.3-1.8 mm (1 SD). The mean 3D displacement was reduced to 2.8 mm and 2.4 mm for the ERB and No-ERB group, respectively. The random interfraction displacements, relative to the treatment isocenter, were not reduced by the ERB and remained nearly unchanged in all three directions: 3.1 mm (1 SD) left-right, 2.6 mm (1 SD) superior-inferior, and 4.7 mm (1 SD) for the anterior-posterior direction. These day-to-day prostate position variations can be explained by the presence of gas and stool beside the ERB. CONCLUSIONS: The off-line corrections on the fiducial markers are effective in reducing the systematic prostate displacements. The investigated ERB does not reduce the interfraction prostate motion. Although the overall mean displacement is low, the day-to-day interfraction motion, especially in anterior-posterior direction, remains high compared with the systematic displacements.     

A comparison of the use of bony anatomy and internal markers for offline verification and an evaluation of the potential benefit of online and offline verification protocols for prostate radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of intraprostatic markers in the treatment verification of prostate cancer radiotherapy. Specific aims were: to compare the effectiveness of offline correction protocols, either using gold markers or bony anatomy; to estimate the potential benefit of online correction protocol's using gold markers; to determine the presence and effect of intrafraction motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with three gold markers inserted had pretreatment and posttreatment images acquired and were treated using an offline correction protocol and gold markers. Retrospectively, an offline protocol was applied using bony anatomy and an online protocol using gold markers. RESULTS: The systematic errors were reduced from 1.3, 1.9, and 2.5 mm to 1.1, 1.1, and 1.5 mm in the right-left (RL), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions, respectively, using the offline correction protocol and gold markers instead of bony anatomy. The subsequent decrease in margins was 1.7, 3.3, and 4 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. An offline correction protocol combined with an online correction protocol in the first four fractions reduced random errors further to 0.9, 1.1, and 1.0 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. A daily online protocol reduced all errors to <1 mm. Intrafraction motion had greater impact on the effectiveness of the online protocol than the offline protocols. CONCLUSIONS: An offline protocol using gold markers is effective in reducing the systematic error. The value of online protocols is reduced by intrafraction motion.     

Multi-institutional clinical experience with the Calypso System in localization and continuous, real-time monitoring of the prostate gland during external radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To report the clinical experience with an electromagnetic treatment target positioning and continuous monitoring system in patients with localized prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Calypso System is a target positioning device that continuously monitors the location of three implanted electromagnetic transponders at a rate of 10 Hz. The system was used at five centers to position 41 patients over a full course of therapy. Electromagnetic positioning was compared to setup using skin marks and to stereoscopic X-ray localization of the transponders. Continuous monitoring was performed in 35 patients. RESULTS: The difference between skin mark vs. the Calypso System alignment was found to be >5 mm in vector length in more than 75% of fractions. Comparisons between the Calypso System and X-ray localization showed good agreement. Qualitatively, the continuous motion was unpredictable and varied from persistent drift to transient rapid movements. Displacements > or =3 and > or =5 mm for cumulative durations of at least 30 s were observed during 41% and 15% of sessions. In individual patients, the number of fractions with displacements > or =3 mm ranged from 3% to 87%; whereas the number of fractions with displacements > or =5 mm ranged from 0% to 56%. CONCLUSION: The Calypso System is a clinically efficient and objective localization method for positioning prostate patients undergoing radiotherapy. Initial treatment setup can be performed rapidly, accurately, and objectively before radiation delivery. The extent and frequency of prostate motion during radiotherapy delivery can be easily monitored and used for motion management.     

Assessment of a daily online implanted fiducial marker‐guided prostate radiotherapy process

The aims of this study were to investigate whether intrafraction prostate motion can affect the accuracy of online prostate positioning using implanted fiducial markers and to determine the effect of prostate rotations on the accuracy of the software‐predicted set‐up correction shifts. Eleven patients were treated with implanted prostate fiducial markers and online set‐up corrections. Orthogonal electronic portal images were acquired to determine couch shifts before treatment. Verification images were also acquired during treatment to assess whether intrafraction motion had occurred. A limitation of the online image registration software is that it does not allow for in‐plane prostate rotations (evident on lateral portal images) when aligning marker positions. The accuracy of couch shifts was assessed by repeating the registration measurements with separate software that incorporates full in‐plane prostate rotations. Additional treatment time required for online positioning was also measured. For the patient group, the overall postalignment systematic prostate errors were less than 1.5 mm (1 standard deviation) in all directions (range 0.2–3.9 mm). The random prostate errors ranged from 0.8 to 3.3 mm (1 standard deviation). One patient exhibited intrafraction prostate motion, resulting in a postalignment prostate set‐up error of more than 10 mm for one fraction. In 14 of 35 fractions, the postalignment prostate set‐up error was greater than 5 mm in the anterior–posterior direction for this patient. Maximum prostate rotations measured from the lateral images varied from 2° to 20° for the patients. The differences between set‐up shifts determined by the online software without in‐plane rotations to align markers, and with rotations applied, was less than 1 mm (root mean square), with a maximum difference of 4.1 mm. Intrafraction prostate motion was found to reduce the effectiveness of the online set‐up for one of the patients. A larger study is required to determine the magnitude of this problem for the patient population. The inability in the current software to incorporate in‐plane prostate rotations is a limitation that should not introduce large errors, provided that the treatment isocentre is positioned near the centre of the prostate.     

Application of the No Action Level (NAL) protocol to correct for prostate motion based on electronic portal imaging of implanted markers

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of the No Action Level (NAL) off-line correction protocol in the reduction of systematic prostate displacements as determined from electronic portal images (EPI) using implanted markers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four platinum markers, two near the apex and two near the base of the prostate, were implanted for localization purposes in patients who received fractionated high dose rate brachytherapy. During the following course of 25 fractions of external beam radiotherapy, the position of each marker relative to the corresponding position in digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) was measured in EPI in 15 patients for on average 17 fractions per patient. These marker positions yield the composite displacements due to both setup error and internal prostate motion, relative to the planning computed tomography scan. As the NAL protocol is highly effective in reducing systematic errors (recurring each fraction) due to setup inaccuracy alone, we investigated its efficacy in reducing systematic composite displacements. The analysis was performed for the center of mass (COM) of the four markers, as well as for the cranial and caudal markers separately. Furthermore, the impact of prostate rotation on the achieved positioning accuracy was determined. RESULTS: In case of no setup corrections, the standard deviations of the systematic composite displacements of the COM were 3-4 mm in the craniocaudal and anterior-posterior directions, and 2 mm in the left-right direction. The corresponding SDs of the random displacements (interfraction fluctuations) were 2-3 mm in each direction. When applying a NAL protocol based on three initial treatment fractions, the SDs of the systematic COM displacements were reduced to 1-2 mm. Displacements at the cranial end of the prostate were slightly larger than at the caudal end, and quantitative analysis showed this originates from left-right axis rotations about the prostate apex. Further analysis revealed that significant time trends are present in these prostate rotations. No significant trends were observed for the prostate translations. CONCLUSIONS: The NAL protocol based on marker positions in EPI halved the composite systematic displacements using only three imaged fractions per patient, and thus allowed for a significant reduction of planning margins. Although large rotations of the prostate, and time trends therein, were observed, the net impact on the measured displacements and on the accuracy obtained with NAL was small.     

Imaging of 1.0-mm-diameter radiopaque markers with megavoltage X-rays: an improved online imaging system

PURPOSE: To improve an online portal imaging system such that implanted cylindrical gold markers of small diameter (no more than 1.0 mm) can be visualized. These small markers would make the implantation procedure much less traumatic for the patient than the large markers (1.6 mm in diameter), which are usually used today to monitor prostate interfraction motion during radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several changes have been made to a mirror-video based online imaging system to improve image quality. First, the conventional camera tube was replaced by an avalanche-multiplication-based video tube. This new camera tube has very high gain at the target such that the camera noise, which is one of the main causes of image degradation of online portal imaging systems, was overcome and effectively eliminated. Second, the conventional linear-accelerator (linac) target was replaced with a low atomic number (low-Z) target such that more diagnostic X-rays are present in the megavoltage X-ray beam. Third, the copper plate buildup layer for the phosphor screen was replaced by a thin plastic layer for detection of the diagnostic X-ray components in the beam generated by the low-Z target. RESULTS: Radiopaque fiducial gold markers of different sizes, i.e., 1.0 mm (diameter) x 5 mm (length) and 0.8 mm (diameter) x 3 mm (length), embedded in an Alderson Rando phantom, can be clearly seen on the images acquired with our improved system. These markers could not be seen on images obtained with any commercial system available in our clinic. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates the visibility of small-diameter radiopaque markers with an improved online portal imaging system. These markers can be easily implanted into the prostate and used to monitor the interfraction motion of the prostate.     

Measurements of intrafraction motion and interfraction and intrafraction rotation of prostate by three-dimensional analysis of daily portal imaging with radiopaque markers

PURPOSE: To measure the interfraction and intrafraction motion of the prostate during the course of external beam radiotherapy using a video electronic portal imaging device and three-dimensional analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients underwent implantation with two or three gold markers in the prostate before five-angle/11-field conformal radiotherapy. Using CT data as the positional reference, multiple daily sets of portal images, and a three-dimensional reconstruction algorithm, intrafraction translations, as well as interfraction and intrafraction rotations, were analyzed along the three principal axes (left-right [LR], superoinferior [SI], and AP). The overall mean values and standard deviations (SDs), along with random and systematic SDs, were computed for these translations and rotations. RESULTS: For 282 intrafraction translational displacements, the random SD was 0.8 mm (systematic SD, 0.2) in the LR, 1.0 mm (systematic SD, 0.4) in the SI, and 1.4 mm (systematic SD, 0.7) in the AP axes. The analysis of 348 interfraction rotations revealed random SDs of 6.1 degrees (systematic SD, 5.6 degrees ) around the LR axis, 2.8 degrees (systematic SD, 2.4 degrees ) around the SI axis, and 2.0 degrees (systematic SD, 2.2 degrees ) around the AP axis. The intrafraction rotational motion observed during 44 fractions had a random SD of 1.8 degrees (systematic SD, 1.0 degrees ) around the LR, 1.1 degrees (systematic SD, 0.8 degrees ) around the SI, and 0.6 degrees (systematic SD, 0.3 degrees ) around the AP axis. CONCLUSION: The interfraction rotations observed were more important than those reported in previous studies. Intrafraction motion was generally smaller in magnitude than interfraction motion. However, the intrafraction rotations and translations of the prostate should be taken into account when designing planning target volume margins because their magnitudes are not negligible.     

Influence of intrafraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of intrafraction intervention on margins for prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven supine prostate patients with three implanted transponders were studied. The relative transponder positions were monitored for 8 min and combined with previously measured data on prostate position relative to skin marks. Margins were determined for situations of (1) skin-based positioning, and (2) pretreatment transponder positioning. Intratreatment intervention was simulated assuming conditions of (1) continuous tracking, and (2) a 3-mm threshold for position correction. RESULTS: For skin-based setup without and with inclusion of intrafraction motion, prostate treatments would have required average margins of 8.0, 7.3, and 10.0 mm and 8.2, 10.2, and 12.5 mm, about the left-right, anterior-posterior, and cranial-caudal directions, respectively. Positioning by prostate markers at the start of the treatment fraction reduced these values to 1.8, 5.8, and 7.1 mm, respectively. Interbeam adjustment further reduced margins to an average of 1.4, 2.3, and 1.8 mm. Intrabeam adjustment yielded margins of 1.3, 1.5, and 1.5 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in margins might be achieved by repositioning the patient before each beam, either radiographically or electromagnetically. However, 2 of the 11 patients would have benefited from continuous target tracking and threshold-based intervention.     

Setup accuracy of stereoscopic X-ray positioning with automated correction for rotational errors in patients treated with conformal arc radiotherapy for prostate cancer

We evaluated setup accuracy of NovalisBody stereoscopic X-ray positioning with automated correction for rotational errors with the Robotics Tilt Module in patients treated with conformal arc radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The correction of rotational errors was shown to reduce random and systematic errors in all directions. (NovalisBody™ and Robotics Tilt Module™ are products of BrainLAB A.G., Heimstetten, Germany).     

Daily prostate targeting using implanted radiopaque markers

PURPOSE: A system has been implemented for daily localization of the prostate through radiographic localization of implanted markers. This report summarizes an initial trial to establish the accuracy of patient setup via this system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Before radiotherapy, three radiopaque markers are implanted in the prostate periphery. Reference positions are established from CT data. Before treatment, orthogonal radiographs are acquired. Projected marker positions are extracted semiautomatically from the radiographs and aligned to the reference positions. Computer-controlled couch adjustment is performed, followed by acquisition of a second pair of radiographs to verify prostate position. Ten patients (6 prone, 4 supine) participated in a trial of daily positioning. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-four fractions were treated using this system. Treatment times were on the order of 30 minutes. Initial prostate position errors (sigma) ranged from 3.1 to 5.8 mm left-right, 4.0 to 10.1 mm anterior-posterior, and 2.6 to 9.0 mm inferior-superior in prone patients. Initial position was more reproducible in supine patients, with errors of 2.8 to 5.0 mm left-right, 1.9 to 3.0 mm anterior-posterior, and 2.6 to 5.3 mm inferior-superior. After prostate localization and adjustment, the position errors were reduced to 1.3 to 3.5 mm left-right, 1.7 to 4.2 mm anterior-posterior, and 1.6 to 4.0 mm inferior-superior in prone patients, and 1.2 to 1.8 mm left-right, 0.9 to 1.8 mm anterior-posterior, and 0.8 to 1.5 mm inferior-superior in supine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Daily targeting of the prostate has been shown to be technically feasible. The implemented system provides the ability to significantly reduce treatment margins for most patients with cancer confined to the prostate. The differences in final position accuracy between prone and supine patients suggest variations in intratreatment prostate movement related to mechanisms of patient positioning.     

Positioning errors and prostate motion during conformal prostate radiotherapy using on-line isocentre set-up verification and implanted prostate markers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment errors from set-up and inter-fraction prostatic motion with port films and implanted prostate fiducial markers during conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Errors from isocentre positioning and inter-fraction prostate motion were investigated in 13 men treated with escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. To limit the effect of inter-fraction prostate motion, patients were planned and treated with an empty rectum and a comfortably full bladder, and were instructed regarding dietary management, fluid intake and laxative use. Field placement was determined and corrected with daily on-line portal imaging. A lateral portal film was taken three times weekly over the course of therapy. From these films, random and systematic placement errors were measured by matching corresponding bony landmarks to the simulator film. Superior-inferior and anterior-posterior prostate motion was measured from the displacement of three gold pins implanted into the prostate before planning. A planning target volume (PTV) was derived to account for the measured prostate motion and field placement errors. RESULTS: From 272 port films the random and systematic isocentre positioning error was 2.2 mm (range 0.2-7.3 mm) and 1.4 mm (range 0.2-3.3 mm), respectively. Prostate motion was largest at the base compared to the apex. Base: anterior, standard deviation (SD) 2.9 mm; superior, SD 2.1 mm. Apex: anterior, SD 2.1 mm; superior, SD 2.1 mm. The margin of PTV required to give a 99% probability of the gland remaining within the 95% isodose line during the course of therapy is superior 5.8 mm, and inferior 5.6 mm. In the anterior and posterior direction, this margin is 7.2 mm at the base, 6.5 mm at the mid-gland and 6.0 mm at the apex. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic set-up errors were small using real-time isocentre placement corrections. Patient instruction to help control variation in bladder and rectal distension during therapy may explain the observed small SD for prostate motion in this group of patients. Inter-fraction prostate motion remained the largest source of treatment error, and observed motion was greatest at the gland base. In the absence of real-time pre-treatment imaging of prostate position, sequential portal films of implanted prostatic markers should improve quality assurance by confirming organ position within the treatment field over the course of therapy.     

Target repositioning optimization in prostate cancer: is intensity-modulated radiotherapy under stereotactic conditions feasible?

PURPOSE: To assess repositioning reproducibility of the prostate when treatment setup conditions before radiotherapy (RT) are optimized and internal organ motion is reduced with an endorectal inflatable balloon. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-two patients were treated with 64 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles using a three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique, followed by a boost (two fractions of 5-8 Gy, 3-5 days apart) delivered to a reduced prostate volume (the peripheral tumor bearing zone with 3-mm margins) using intensity-modulated RT. A commercially available infrared-guided stereotactic repositioning system and a rectal balloon were used. Further improvement in repositioning could be obtained with a stereoscopic X-ray registration device matching the pelvic bones during treatment with the corresponding bones in the planning computed tomography (CT). To simulate repositioning reproducibility, CT resimulation was performed before the last boost fraction. Prostate repositioning was reassessed, first after CT-to-CT fusion with the stereotactic metallic body markers of the infrared-guided system, and second after CT-to-CT registration of the pelvic bony structures. RESULTS: Standard deviations of the prostate (CTV) center of mass shifts in the three axes ranged from 2.2 to 3.6 mm with body marker registration and from 0.9 to 2.5 mm with pelvic bone registration. The latter improvement was significant, particularly in the right-to-left axis (3.5-fold improvement). In 10 patients, systematic rectal probe repositioning errors (i.e., >20-mL probe volume variations or >8-mm probe shifts in the perpendicular axes) were detected. Target repositioning was reassessed excluding these 10 patients. An additional improvement was observed in the anteroposterior axis with 1.7 times and 1.5 times reduction of the standard deviation with body markers and pelvic bone registrations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Infrared-guided target repositioning for prostate cancer can be optimized with a stereoscopic X-ray positioning device mostly in the right-to-left axis. An optimally positioned inflatable rectal probe further optimizes target repositioning mostly along the anteroposterior axis. Thus a planning target volume with a margin of 2 (right-to-left), 4 (anteroposteriorly), and 6 (craniocaudally) mm around the CTV can be recommended under optimal setup conditions with pelvic bone registration and optimal repositioning of an inflated rectal balloon.     

Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. RESULTS: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 +/- 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 +/- 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 +/- 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 +/- 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 +/- 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 +/- 1.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.     

Retrospective analysis of prostate cancer patients with implanted gold markers using off-line and adaptive therapy protocols

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of applying adaptive and off-line setup correction models to bony anatomy and gold fiducial markers implanted in the prostate, relative to daily alignment to skin tattoos and daily on-line corrections of the implanted gold markers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten prostate cancer patients with implanted gold fiducial markers were treated using a daily on-line setup correction protocol. The patients' positions were aligned to skin tattoos and two orthogonal diagnostic digital radiographs were obtained before treatment each day. These radiographs were compared with digitally reconstructed radiographs to obtain the translational setup errors of the bony anatomy and gold markers. The adaptive, no-action-level and shrinking-action-level off-line protocols were retrospectively applied to the bony anatomy to determine the change in the setup errors of the gold markers. The protocols were also applied to the gold markers directly to determine the residual setup errors. RESULTS: The percentage of remaining fractions that the gold markers fell within the adaptive margins constructed with 1.5sigma' (estimated random variation) after 5, 10, and 15 measurement fractions was 74%, 88%, and 93% for the prone patients and 55%, 77%, and 93% for the supine patients, respectively. Using 2sigma', the percentage after 5, 10, and 15 measurements was 85%, 95%, and 97% for the prone patients and 68%, 87%, and 99% for the supine patients, respectively. The average initial three-dimensional (3D) setup error of the gold markers was 0.92 cm for the prone patients and 0.70 cm for the supine patients. Application of the no-action-level protocol to bony anatomy with N(m) = 3 days resulted in significant benefit to 4 of 10 patients, but 3 were significantly worse. The residual average 3D setup error of the gold markers was 1.14 cm and 0.51 cm for the prone and supine patients, respectively. When applied directly to the gold markers with N(m) = 3 days, 5 patients benefited and 3 were significantly worse. The residual 3D error of the gold markers was 1.14 cm and 0.76 cm for the prone and supine patients, respectively. Application of the shrinking-action-level protocol to bony anatomy with an initial action level of 1.0 cm and N(max) = 5 days decreased the residual systematic offset of the gold markers in 2 of 10 patients. The residual average 3D setup error of the gold markers was 1.2 cm and 1.0 cm for the prone and supine patients, respectively. When applied directly to the gold markers with N(max) = 5 days, the residual systematic offset of the gold markers decreased in 6 of 10 patients (0.84 cm and 0.67 cm for the prone and supine patients, respectively). In general, between 3 and 5 of the 10 patients showed significant decreases in setup errors with the application of these off-line protocols, and the remaining patients showed no significant improvement or showed significantly larger setup errors, as determined by the residual error of the gold markers. CONCLUSION: Changes in a prostate cancer patient's systematic and random setup characteristics during the course of therapy often violate the gaussian assumptions of adaptive and off-line correction models. Thus, off-line setup correction procedures, especially those directed at prostate localization using markers, will result in limited benefit to a minority of patients. The relative benefit of on-line localization is still potentially significant if the intrafraction motion is relatively small.     

Clinical use of stereoscopic X-ray positioning of patients treated with conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate accuracy and time requirements of a stereoscopic X-ray-based positioning system in patients receiving conformal radiotherapy to the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Setup errors of the isocenter with regard to the bony pelvis were measured by means of orthogonal verification films and compared to conventional positioning (using skin drawings and lasers) and infrared marker (IR) based positioning in each of 261 treatments. In each direction, the random error represents the standard deviation and the systematic error the absolute value of the mean position. Time measurements were done in 75 treatments. RESULTS: Random errors with the X-ray positioning system in the anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and longitudinal direction were (average +/- 1 standard deviation) 2 +/- 0.6 mm, 1.7 +/- 0.6 mm, and 2.4 +/- 0.7 mm. The corresponding values of conventional as well as IR positioning were significantly higher (p < 0.01). Systematic errors for X-ray positioning were 1.1 +/- 1.2 mm AP, 0.6 +/- 0.5 mm laterally, and 1.5 +/- 1.6 mm longitudinally. Conventional and IR marker-based positioning showed significantly larger systematic errors AP and laterally, but longitudinally, the difference was not significant. Depending on the axis looked at, errors of >or=5 mm occurred in 2%-14% of treatments after X-ray positioning, 13%-29% using IR markers, and 28%-53% with conventional positioning. Total linac time for one treatment session was 14 min 51 s +/- 4 min 18 s, half of which was used for the X-ray-assisted positioning procedure. CONCLUSION: X-ray-assisted patient positioning significantly improves setup accuracy, at the cost of an increased treatment time.