Internal organ motion in prostate cancer patients treated in prone and supine treatment position.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare supine and prone treatment positions for prostate cancer patients with respect to internal prostate motion and the required treatment planning margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients were treated in supine and fifteen in prone position. For each patient, a planning computed tomography (CT) scan was used for treatment planning. Three repeat CT scans were made in weeks 2, 4, and 6 of the radiotherapy treatment. Only for the planning CT scan, laxation was used to minimise the rectal content. For all patients, the clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of prostate and seminal vesicles. Variations in the position of the CTV relative to the bony anatomy in the four CT scans of each patient were assessed using 3D chamfer matching. The overall variations were separated into variations in the mean CTV position per patient (i.e. the systematic component) and the average 'day-to-day' variation (i.e. the random component). Required planning margins to account for the systematic and random variations in internal organ position and patient set-up were estimated retrospectively using coverage probability matrices. RESULTS: The observed overall variation in the internal CTV position was larger for the patients treated in supine position. For the supine and prone treatment positions, the random components of the variation along the anterior-posterior axis (i.e. towards the rectum) were 2.4 and 1.5 mm (I standard deviation (1 SD)), respectively; the random rotations around the left-right axis were 3.0 and 2.9 degrees (1 SD). The systematic components of these motions (1 SD) were larger: 2.6 and 3.3 mm, and 3.7 and 5.6 degrees, respectively. The set-up variations were similar for both treatment positions. Despite the smaller overall variations in CTV position for the patients in prone position, the required planning margin is equal for both groups (about 1 cm except for 0.5 cm in lateral direction) due to the larger impact of the systematic variations. However, significant time trends cause a systematic ventral-superior shift of the CTV in supine position only. CONCLUSIONS: For internal prostate movement, it is important to distinguish systematic from random variations. Compared to patients in supine position, patients in prone position had smaller random but somewhat larger systematic variations in the most important coordinates of the internal CTV position. The estimated planning margins to account for the geometrical uncertainties were therefore similar for the two treatment positions.

Acute morbidity reduction using 3DCRT for prostate carcinoma: a randomized study.

PURPOSE: To study the effects on gastrointestinal and urological acute morbidity, a randomized toxicity study, comparing conventional and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for prostate carcinoma was performed. To reveal possible volume effects, related to the observed toxicity, dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were used. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 1994 to March 1996, 266 patients with prostate carcinoma, stage T1-4N0M0 were enrolled in the study. All patients were treated to a dose of 66 Gy (ICRU), using the same planning procedure, treatment technique, linear accelerator, and portal imaging procedure. However, patients in the conventional treatment arm were treated with rectangular, open fields, whereas conformal radiotherapy was performed with conformally shaped fields using a multileaf collimator. All treatment plans were made with a 3D planning system. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined to be the gross target volume (GTV) + 15 mm. Acute toxicity was evaluated using the EORTC/RTOG morbidity scoring system. RESULTS: Patient and tumor characteristics were equally distributed between both study groups. The maximum toxicity was 57% grade 1 and 26% grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity; 47% grade 1, 17% grade 2, and 2% grade > 2 urological toxicity. Comparing both study arms, a reduction in gastrointestinal toxicity was observed (32% and 19% grade 2 toxicity for conformal and conventional radiotherapy, respectively; p = 0.02). Further analysis revealed a marked reduction in medication for anal symptoms: this accounts for a large part of the statistical difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (18% vs. 14% [p = ns] grade 2 rectum/sigmoid toxicity and 16% vs. 8% [p < 0.0001] grade 2 anal toxicity for conventional and conformal radiotherapy, respectively). A strong correlation between exposure of the anus and anal toxicity was found, which explained the difference in anal toxicity between both study arms. No difference in urological toxicity between both treatment arms was found, despite a relatively large difference in bladder DVHs. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in gastrointestinal morbidity was mainly accounted for by reduced toxicity for anal symptoms using 3DCRT. The study did not show a statistically significant reduction in acute rectum/sigmoid and bladder toxicity.

Multiple two-dimensional versus three-dimensional PTV definition in treatment planning for conformal radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the need for a fully three-dimensional (3D) computerized expansion of the gross tumour volume (GTV) or clinical target volume (CTV), as delineated by the radiation oncologist on CT slices, to obtain the proper planning target volume (PTV) for treatment planning according to the ICRU-50 recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 10 prostate cancer patients two PTVs have been determined by expansion of the GTV with a 1.5 cm margin, i.e. a 3D PTV and a multiple 2D PTV. The former was obtained by automatically adding the margin while accounting in 3D for GTV contour differences in neighbouring slices. The latter was generated by automatically adding the 1.5 cm margin to the GTV in each CT slice separately; the resulting PTV is a computer simulation of the PTV that a radiation oncologist would obtain with (the still common) manual contouring in CT slices. For each patient the two PTVs were compared to assess the deviations of the multiple 2D PTV from the 3D PTV. For both PTVs conformal plans were designed using a three-field technique with fixed block margins. For each patient dose-volume histograms and tumour control probabilities (TCPs) of the (correct) 3D PTV were calculated, both for the plan designed for this PTV and for the treatment plan based on the (deviating) 2D PTV. RESULTS: Depending on the shape of the GTV, multiple 2D PTV generation could locally result in a 1 cm underestimation of the GTV-to-PTV margin. The deviations occurred predominantly in the cranio-caudal direction at locations where the GTV contour shape varies significantly from slice to slice. This could lead to serious underdosage and to a TCP decrease of up to 15%. CONCLUSIONS: A full 3D GTV-to-PTV expansion should be applied in conformal radiotherapy to avoid underdosage.

Field margin reduction using intensity-modulated x-ray beams formed with a multileaf collimator.

PURPOSE: In axial, coplanar treatments with multiple fields, the superior and inferior ends of a planning target volume (PTV) are at risk to get underdosed due to the overlapping penumbras of all treatment fields. We have investigated a technique using intensity modulated x-ray beams that allows the use of small margins for definition of the superior and inferior field borders while still reaching a minimum PTV-dose of 95% of the isocenter dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The applied intensity modulated beams, generated with a multileaf collimator, include narrow (1.1-1.6 cm) boost fields to increase the dose in the superior and inferior ends of the PTV. The benefits of this technique have been assessed using 3D treatment plans for 10 prostate cancer patients. Treatment planning was performed with the Cadplan 3D planning system (Varian-Dosetek). Dose calculations for the narrow boost fields have been compared with measurements. The application of the boost fields has been tested on the MM50 Racetrack Microtron (Scanditronix Medical AB), which allows fully computer-controlled setup of all involved treatment fields. RESULTS: Compared to our standard technique, the superior-inferior field length can be reduced by 1.6 cm, generally yielding smaller volumes of rectum and bladder in the high dose region. For the narrow boost fields, calculated relative dose distributions agree within 2% or 0.2 cm with measured dose distributions. For accurate monitor unit calculations, the phantom scatter table used in the Cadplan system had to be modified using measured data for square fields smaller than 4 x 4 cm2. The extra time needed at the MM50 for the setup and delivery of the boost fields is usually about 1 min. CONCLUSION: The proposed use of intensity modulated beams yields improved conformal dose distributions for treatment of prostate cancer patients with a superior-inferior field size reduction of 1.6 cm. Treatments of other tumor sites can also benefit from the application of the boost fields.