On-line aSi portal imaging of implanted fiducial markers for the reduction of interfraction error during conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma.

PURPOSE: An on-line system to ensure accuracy of daily setup and therapy of the prostate has been implemented with no equipment modification required. We report results and accuracy of patient setup using this system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiopaque fiducial markers were implanted into the prostate before radiation therapy. Lateral digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were obtained from planning CT data. Before each treatment fraction, a lateral amorphous silicon (aSi) portal image was acquired and the position of the fiducial markers was compared to the DRRs using chamfer matching. Couch translation only was used to account for marker position displacements, followed by a second lateral portal image to verify isocenter position. Residual displacement data for the aSi and previous portal film systems were compared. RESULTS: This analysis includes a total of 239 portal images during treatment in 17 patients. Initial prostate center of mass (COM) displacements in the superior, inferior, anterior, and posterior directions were a maximum of 7 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm and 11 mm respectively. After identification and correction, prostate COM displacements were <3 mm in all directions. The therapists found it simple to match markers 88% of the time using this system. Treatment delivery times were in the order of 9 min for patients requiring isocenter adjustment and 6 min for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This system is technically possible to implement and use as part of an on-line correction protocol and does not require a longer than standard daily appointment time at our center with the current action limit of 3 mm. The system is commercially available and is more efficient and user-friendly than portal film analysis. It provides the opportunity to identify and accommodate interfraction organ motion and may also permit the use of smaller margins during conformal prostate radiotherapy. Further integration of the system such as remote table control would improve efficiency.

A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal treatment position for patients receiving radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer has been a source of controversy. To resolve this issue, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the effects of supine and prone positioning on organ motion, positioning errors, and dose to critical organs during escalated dose conformal irradiation for localized prostate cancer and patient and therapist satisfaction with setup technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty eight patients were randomized to commence treatment immobilized in the supine or prone position and were subsequently changed to the alternate positioning for the latter half of their treatment. Patients underwent CT simulation and conformal radiotherapy planning and treatment in both positions. The clinical target volume encompassed the prostate gland. Alternate day lateral port films were compared to corresponding simulator radiographs to measure the isocentre positioning errors (IPE). Prostate motion (PM) and total positioning error (TPE) were measured from the same films by the displacements of three implanted fiducial markers. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) for the two treatment positions were compared at the 95, 80 and 50% dose (D%) levels. The patients and radiation therapists completed weekly questionnaires regarding patient comfort and ease of setup. RESULTS: Seven patients, who started in the supine position, subsequently refused prone position and received their whole treatment supine. Small bowel in the treatment volume, not present in the supine position, prevented one patient from being treated prone. PM in anterior posterior direction was statistically significantly less in the supine position (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in superior inferior PM for the two treatment positions. No statistically significant difference between supine and prone positioning was observed in isocentre positioning error (IPE) or total positioning error (TPE) due to a policy of daily pre-treatment correction. However, more pre-treatment corrections were required for patients in the prone position. The DVH analysis demonstrated larger volumes of the bladder wall, rectal wall and small bowel within the D95, D80 and D50% when comparing the planning target volumes (PTVs) actually treated for prone positioning. When the prone PTV was expanded to account for the greater PM encountered in that position, a statistically significant difference (P<0.007) was observed in favour of the supine position at all dose levels. In the prone position, four patients had small bowel within the 60 Gray (Gy) isodose and in the supine position, no patients had small bowel in the 60 or 38Gy volumes. Supine position was significantly more comfortable for the patients and setup was significantly easier for the radiation therapists. The median patient comfort score was 0.79 (Standard deviation (SD) 0.03) supine and 0.45 (SD 0.05) prone (P<0.001) The therapist convenience of setup was 0.80 (SD 0.016) supine and 0.54 (SD 0.025) prone (P<0.005). No statistically significant difference was seen for the other parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significantly less PM in the supine treatment position. There was no difference for either treatment position in IPE or TPE, however, more pre-treatment corrections were required in the prone position. Prone position required a larger PTV with resulting increased dose to critical organs. There were statistically significant improvements at all dose levels for small bowel, rectal wall and bladder wall doses in the supine position once corrections were made for differences in organ motion. Linear analogue scores of patient comfort and radiation therapist convenience demonstrated statistically significant improvement in favour of the supine position. Supine positioning has been adopted as the standard for conformal prostatic irradiation at our centre.

Techniques to modulate radiotherapy toxicity and outcome in soft tissue sarcoma.

Radiotherapy (RT) targeting of soft tissue sarcoma presents considerable opportunity and challenges in realizing the dual goals of tissue and function preservation and maintaining high local control. Traditional RT target volumes used for soft tissue sarcoma have largely been constrained by available technology and are not ideal in some situations. The advent of very precise treatment planning and delivery systems, including three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, means it is possible to select target volumes that more closely approach the optimum. Consequently, these new approaches provide great opportunity for treatment enhancement in the future. It can be expected that newer techniques for RT planning and delivery will challenge the existing dogma concerning target delineation for optimal radiotherapy outcome. It can be foreseen that the precise knowledge of appropriate targets will continue to evolve for different clinical scenarios and likely be greatly influenced by enhanced imaging capability. Advancement of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy over the next decade must rely on the consistent reporting and sharing of results concerning outcome of normal tissue from volumetric treatment planning.

A dose-volume histogram analysis of the seminal vesicles in men treated with conformal radiotherapy to 'prostate alone'.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no consensus on whether the seminal vesicles should be included in the clinical target volume (CTV) for radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. To inform the debate, we have undertaken a dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis of the seminal vesicles in patients treated with escalated dose conformal radiation to 'prostate alone'. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients receiving conformal radiation to the prostate, to a dose of 75.6 Gy in 42 daily fractions, were studied. The CTV was defined as the prostate only, and the planning target volume (PTV) was defined by a 10 mm margin, except posteriorly where the margin was 7 mm. DVHs were calculated for the entire seminal vesicles, and for 6 mm segments through the seminal vesicles. RESULTS: Incorporating a correction for organ motion, the D90 (minimum dose received by 90% of the volume of interest) for the most inferior 6 mm volume of the seminal vesicles (SV1) ranged from 25 to 70 Gy, and the percentage volume of SV1 receiving 50 Gy ranged from 47-100%. Using a D90 of 50 Gy as a cut-off, eight of the 25 patients had unacceptably low-dose coverage of SV1. CONCLUSIONS: Escalated dose conformal radiation to the 'prostate alone' does not ensure adequate dose coverage of even the most inferior 6 mm of the seminal vesicles. We consider such treatment acceptable in patients at low risk of seminal vesicle involvement (T1/2ab, Gleason < or = 7, PSA < 10 ng/ml). In higher risk patients, if it is deemed necessary to treat the possibility of sub-clinical seminal vesicle involvement, this should be reflected in the definition of the CTV.

Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Permanent seed implants are accepted treatment of early stage prostate cancer. Implant quality is assessed by post implant CT-based dosimetry but prostate contours on CT images are obscured by metallic seed artefact and edema. Outcome depends on implant quality, but perceived implant quality depends on accurate prostate contouring. This study documents inter observer variation in prostate contouring on post implant CT scans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients had implant dosimetry calculated on 4 copies of the post implant CT scan. Prostate contours from MRI-CT fusion were the gold standard for prostate edge identification. CTs were contoured by an experienced prostate brachytherapist matching CT images to the pre implant TRUS, and by 2 GU radiation oncologists experienced in conformal radiotherapy planning. Dosimetry was compared to that obtained using MRI-CT fusion in terms of D90 and V100. RESULTS: Contours and dosimetry were not reproducible among the 3 observers. The V100's of the experienced brachytherapist differed from that of MRI-CT fusion by a mean of 2.4% compared to 9.1% and 4.4% for observers 1 and 2, and the D90 by a mean of 9.3 Gy compared to 30.3 and 14.4 Gy for observers 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy based on 1 month post implant CT is difficult. This may obscure the dose-response relationship in brachytherapy as well as create problems for quality assurance in multicentre trials evaluating brachytherapy against standard modalities. Whenever possible, MRI-CT fusion should be employed to verify prostate contours post implant.