Gold marker displacement due to needle insertion during HDR-brachytherapy for treatment of prostate cancer: a prospective cone beam computed tomography and kilovoltage on-board imaging (kV-OBI) study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate gold marker displacement due to needle insertion during HDR-brachytherapy for therapy of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 18 patients entered into this prospective evaluation. Three gold markers were implanted into the prostate during the first HDR-brachytherapy procedure after the irradiation was administered. Three days after marker implantation all patients had a CT-scan for planning purpose of the percutaneous irradiation. Marker localization was defined on the digitally-reconstructed-radiographs (DRR) for daily (VMAT technique) or weekly (IMRT) set-up error correction. Percutaneous therapy started one week after first HDR-brachytherapy. After the second HDR-brachytherapy, two weeks after first HDR-brachtherapy, a cone-beam CT-scan was done to evaluate marker displacement due to needle insertion. In case of marker displacement, the actual positions of the gold markers were adjusted on the DRR. RESULTS: The value of the gold marker displacement due to the second HDR-brachytherapy was analyzed in all patients and for each gold marker by comparison of the marker positions in the prostate after soft tissue registration of the prostate of the CT-scans prior the first and second HDR-brachytherapy. The maximum deviation was 5 mm, 7 mm and 12 mm for the anterior-posterior, lateral and superior-inferior direction. At least one marker in each patient showed a significant displacement and therefore new marker positions were adjusted on the DRRs for the ongoing percutaneous therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Needle insertion in the prostate due to HDR-brachytherapy can lead to gold marker displacements. Therefore, it is necessary to verify the actual position of markers after the second HDR-brachytherapy. In case of significant deviations, a new DRR with the adjusted marker positions should be generated for precise positioning during the ongoing percutaneous irradiation.

The impact of prostate volume changes during external-beam irradiation in consequence of HDR brachytherapy in prostate cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prostate volume changes during external-beam irradiation in consequence of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in prostate cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients who underwent radiotherapy for prostate cancer were included in this prospective evaluation. All patients had a computed tomography (CT) scan for planning of the external-beam irradiation and additional scans after each HDR brachytherapy. For the planning target volume (PTV), a safety margin of 10 mm was added to the clinical target volume (CTV) in each direction. The prostate volume measured in the planning CT was compared with the prostate volumes measured after HDR brachytherapy and, subsequently, the change of prostate volume was calculated. Volume changes which resulted in differences of the prostate radius of > 5 mm for the CTV were defined as a reason for a new treatment-planning procedure for the patient. RESULTS: Taking all patients together, prostate volumes before HDR, 1 day and 4-6 days after the first HDR treatment, as well as 1 day and 4-6 days after the second HDR treatment were in median 37.7 cm(3), 37.6 cm(3), 38.2 cm(3), 39.3 cm(3), and 40.5 cm(3), respectively. In none of the patient, a volume change resulted in a change of the prostate radius of > 5 mm for the CTV. Prerequisite for this calculation was the simplification of the complex prostate geometry to a sphere. No new treatment-planning procedure was necessary during external-beam radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: HDR brachytherapy does change the prostate volume. Under the condition of a 10-mm safety margin in each direction added to the CTV for the PTV, no new treatment-planning procedure was necessary after HDR brachytherapy. There is no need for CT scans at regular intervals during external-beam radiotherapy.

The delineation of target volumes for radiotherapy of lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Differences in the delineation of the gross target volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer are considerable. The focus of this work is on the analysis of observer-related reasons while controlling for other variables. METHODS: In three consecutive patients, eighteen physicians from fourteen different departments delineated the GTV and PTV in CT-slices using a detailed instruction for target delineation. Differences in the volumes, the delineated anatomic lymph node compartments and differences in every delineated pixel of the contoured volumes in the CT-slices (pixel-by-pixel-analysis) were evaluated for different groups: ten radiation oncologists from ten departments (ROs), four haematologic oncologists and chest physicians from four departments (HOs) and five radiation oncologists from one department (RO1D). RESULTS: Agreement (overlap > or = 70% of the contoured pixels) for the GTV and PTV delineation was found in 16.3% and 23.7% (ROs), 30.4% and 38.6% (HOs) and 32.8% and 35.9% (RO1D), respectively. CONCLUSION: A large interobserver variability in the PTV and much more in the GTV delineation were observed in spite of a detailed instruction for delineation. The variability was smallest for group ROID where due to repeated discussions and uniform teaching a better agreement was achieved.

In vivo alanine/electron spin resonance (ESR) dosimetry in radiotherapy of prostate cancer: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: We have developed a device to evaluate the potential of alanine/electron spin resonance (ESR) dosimetry for quality assurance in 3D conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. It consists of a rectal balloon carrying eight alanine dosimeter probes and two metal markers to document the exact position of the balloon. We measured the effects of an air-filled rectal balloon on the dose at the rectal wall and compared these results with the applied dose distribution of the treatment planning system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 10 fractions with 2.0 Gy per fraction, the accumulated doses were measured in 3 patients. The results of the ESR measurements were compared to the applied doses. RESULTS: It was possible to insert the device without clinical complications and without additional rectal discomfort for the patients. The measurements of the dose accumulated at the anterior and the posterior rectal wall agreed with the applied dose within a mean deviation of 1.5% (overestimation of the dose) and 3.5% (underestimation of the dose), respectively. However, clinically significant differences between applied and measured rectal doses were seen in a patient with a hip prosthesis. In this case, the dose at the anterior rectal wall was overestimated by the TPS by about 11% and the dose at the posterior rectal wall was underestimated by approximately 7%. CONCLUSION: The method presented in this study is useful for quality control of irradiations in vivo.