Improving positioning in high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: safety and visibility of frequently used gold fiducial markers.

PURPOSE: The use of gold fiducial markers (GFMs) for prostate positioning in high-dose radiotherapy is gaining interest. The purpose of this study was to compare five GFMs regarding feasibility of ultrasound-based implantation in the prostate and intraprostatic lesion (IPL); toxicity; visibility on transabdominal ultrasound (TU) and cone-beam CT (CBCT); reliability of automatic, soft tissue, and GFM-based CBCT patient positioning by comparing manual and automatic fusion CBCT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five patients were included. Pain and toxicity were scored after implantation and high-dose radiotherapy. Fisher exact test was used to evaluate the correlation of patients' characteristics and prostatitis. Positioning was evaluated on TU and kilovoltage CBCT images. CBCT fusion was performed automatically (Elekta XVI technology, release 3.5.1 b27, based on grey values) and manually on soft tissue and GFMs. Pearson correlation statistics and Bland-Altman evaluation were used. Five GFMs were compared. RESULTS: Twenty percent of the patients developed prostatitis despite antibiotic prophylaxis. Cigarette smoking was significantly correlated with prostatitis. The visualization of all GFMs on TU was disappointing. Consequently we cannot recommend the use of these GFMs for TU-based prostate positioning. For all GFMs, there was only fair to poor linear correlation between automatic and manual CBCT images, indicating that even when GFMs are used, an operator evaluation is imperative. However, when GFMs were analyzed individually, a moderate to very strong correlation between automatic and manual positioning was found for larger GFMs in all directions. CONCLUSION: The incidence of prostatitis in our series was high. Further research is imperative to define the ideal preparation protocol preimplantation and to select patients. Automatic fusion is more reliable with larger GFMs at the cost of more scatter. The stability of all GFMs was proven.

Analysis of prostate bed motion using daily cone-beam computed tomography during postprostatectomy radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To report on the interfraction total positioning error of the postoperative prostate bed and to quantify its components (bony misalignment [BM] and prostate bed motion [PBM]) using daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The role of an adaptive radiotherapy schedule (ART) was investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 547 daily CBCT images from 15 consecutive patients who had been treated with prostate bed radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. The positioning error was measured by rigid co-registration of the daily CBCT with pretreatment CT planning scan. The total positioning error was quantified by co-registration of the CBCT with the CT planning scan to match the anterior rectal wall. Automatic bony pelvis co-registration was performed to separate BM and PBM. The ART was determined by the average total positioning error from the first 5 CBCT images. RESULTS: The systematic error for the total positioning error in the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior direction was 2.69, 2.00, and 2.65 mm with a random error of 1.99, 1.49, and 2.25 mm, resulting in a planning target volume margin of 8, 6, and 8 mm, respectively. ART reduced the margin by 54%, 44%, and 40%, respectively. Systematic errors in the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior direction for BM was 2.66, 1.83, and 2.60 mm and for PBM was 0.44, 0.92, and 2.50 mm with a random error of 1.88, 1.24, and 1.77 mm for BM and 0.99, 1.38, and 2.32 mm for PBM, respectively. CONCLUSION: Without treatment verifications, 6-8-mm planning target volume margins are required because of PBM and BM. The anteroposterior PBM was significant. An ART protocol can reduce these planning target volume margins.

Preliminary results on setup precision of prone-lateral patient positioning for whole breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a rapid and reproducible technique for prone positioning and to compare dose-volume indices in prone and supine positions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients underwent computed tomography imaging for radiotherapy planning in prone and supine position. Experience was gained in the first eight patients, which lead to modifications of the Horizon prone breast board (Civco Medical Solutions, Orange City, Iowa, USA) and the patient setup technique. A unilateral breast holder (U-BH) was developed (Van de Velde, Schellebelle, Belgium) to retract the contralateral breast away from the treated breast. The technique was then applied to an additional 10 patients. The setup precision was evaluated using daily cone-beam CT. RESULTS: Modifications to the breast board were made to secure a prone-lateral rather then a pure prone position. We evolved from a classical setup using laser marks on the patients' body to a direct breast setup using marks on the breast only. The setup precision of the direct positioning procedure with the modified breast board and the U-BH is comparable to supine setup data in the literature. Dose-volume indices for heart and lung show significantly better results for prone than for supine position, and dose homogeneity within the treated breast did not differ according to the treatment position. CONCLUSIONS: The setup precision of our prone-lateral positioning technique is comparable to supine data in literature. Our data show the advantage of prone radiotherapy to spare the lung and heart. Further research is necessary to reduce the duration of prone setup.