Image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumors using BodyLoc with tomotherapy: clinical implementation and set-up accuracy.

We investigated the use of a BodyLoc immobilization and stereotactic localization device combined with TomoTherapy megavoltage CT (MVCT) in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to reduce set-up uncertainty and treatment time. Eight patients treated with 3-5 fractions of SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. A BodyLoc localizer was used in both CT simulation for localization and the initial patient treatment set-up. Patients were immobilized with a vacuum cushion on the back and a thermoplastic body cast on the anterior body. Pretreatment MVCT from the TomoTherapy unit was fused with the planning kilovoltage CT (KVCT) before each fraction of treatment to determine interfractional set-up error. The comparison of two MVCTs during a fraction of treatment resulted in the intrafractional uncertainty of the treatment. A total of 224 target isocenter shifts were analyzed to assess these inter- and intrafractional tumor motions. We found that for interfractional shifts, the mean set-up errors and standard deviations were -1.1 +/- 2.8 mm, -2.5 +/- 8.7 mm, and 4.1 +/- 2.6 mm, for lateral, longitudinal, and vertical variation, respectively; the mean setup rotational variation was -0.3 +/- 0.7 degrees; and the maximum motion was 13.5 mm in the longitudinal direction. For intrafractional shifts, the mean set-up errors and standard deviations were -0.1 +/- 0.7 mm, -0.3 +/- 2.0 mm, and 0.5 +/- 1.1 mm for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical shifts, respectively; the mean rotational variation was 0.1 +/- 0.2 degrees; and the maximum motion was 3.8 mm in the longitudinal direction. There was no correlation among patient characteristics, set-up uncertainties, and isocenter shifts, and the interfractional set-up uncertainties were larger than the intrafractional isocenter shift. The results of this study suggested that image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy using the BodyLoc immobilization system with TomoTherapy can improve treatment accuracy.

Analysis of daily setup variation with tomotherapy megavoltage computed tomography.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate different setup uncertainties for various anatomic sites with TomoTherapy pretreatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and to provide optimal margin guidelines for these anatomic sites. Ninety-two patients with tumors in head and neck (HN), brain, lung, abdominal, or prostate regions were included in the study. MVCT was used to verify patient position and tumor target localization before each treatment. With the anatomy registration tool, MVCT provided real-time tumor shift coordinates relative to the positions where the simulation CT was performed. Thermoplastic facemasks were used for HN and brain treatments. Vac-Lok cushions were used to immobilize the lower extremities up to the thighs for prostate patients. No respiration suppression was administered for lung and abdomen patients. The interfractional setup variations were recorded and corrected before treatment. The mean interfractional setup error was the smallest for HN among the 5 sites analyzed. The average 3D displacement in lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions for the 5 sites ranged from 2.2-7.7 mm for HN and lung, respectively. The largest movement in the lung was 2.0 cm in the longitudinal direction, with a mean error of 6.0 mm and standard deviation of 4.8 mm. The mean interfractional rotation variation was small and ranged from 0.2-0.5 degrees, with the standard deviation ranging from 0.7-0.9 degrees. Internal organ displacement was also investigated with a posttreatment MVCT scan for HN, lung, abdomen, and prostate patients. The maximum 3D intrafractional displacement across all sites was less than 4.5 mm. The interfractional systematic errors and random errors were analyzed and the suggested margins for HN, brain, prostate, abdomen, and lung in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions were between 4.2 and 8.2 mm, 5.0 mm and 12.0 mm, and 1.5 mm and 6.8 mm, respectively. We suggest that TomoTherapy pretreatment MVCT can be used to improve the accuracy of patient positioning and reduce tumor margin.

IMRT for prostate cancer: defining target volume based on correlated pathologic volume of disease.

PURPOSE: The intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning system generates tightly constricted isodose lines. It is very important to define the margins that are acceptable in the treatment of prostate cancer to maximize the dose escalation and normal tissue avoidance advantages offered by IMRT. It is necessary to take into account subclinical disease and the potential for extracapsular spread. Organ and patient motion as well as setup errors are variables that must be minimized and defined to avoid underdosing the tumor or overdosing the normal tissues. We have addressed these issues previously. The purpose of the study was twofold: to quantify the radial distance of extracapsular extension in the prostatectomy specimens, and to quantify differences between the pathologic prostate volume (PPV), CT-based gross tumor volume (GTV), and planning target volume (PTV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two related studies were undertaken. A total of 712 patients underwent prostatectomy between August 1983 and September 1995. Pathologic assessment of the radial distance of extracapsular extension was performed. Shrinkage associated with fixation was accounted for with a linear shrinkage factor. Ten patients had preoperative staging studies including a CT scan of the pelvis. The GTV was outlined and volume determined from these CT scans. The PTV, defined as GTV with a 5-mm margin in all dimensions, was then calculated. The Peacock inverse planning system (NOMOS Corp., Sewickley, PA) was used. The PPV, GTV, and PTV were compared for differences and evaluated for correlation. RESULTS: Extracapsular extension (ECE) (i.e., prostatic capsular invasion level 3 [both focal and established]) was found in 299 of 712 patients (42.0%). Measurable disease extending radially outside the prostatic capsule (i.e., ECE level 3 established) was noted in 185 of 712 (26.0%). The median radial extension was 2.0 mm (range 0.50-12.00 mm) outside the prostatic capsule. As a group, 20 of 712 (2.8%) had extracapsular extension of more than 5 mm. In the volumetric comparison and correlation study of the GTV and PTV to the PPV, the average GTV was 2 times larger than the PPV. The average PTV was 4.1 times larger than the PPV. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series in the literature quantitatively assessing prostatic capsular invasion (i.e., the radial extracapsular extension). It is the first report of a comparison of PPV to CT-planned GTV and PTV. Using patient and prostate immobilization, 5 mm of margin to the GTV in this study provided sufficient coverage of the tumor volume based on data gathered from 712 patients. In the absence of prostate immobilization, additional margins of differing amounts depending on the technique employed would have to be placed to account for target, patient, and setup uncertainties. The large mean difference between CT-based estimates of the tumor volume and target volume (GTV+PTV) and PPV added further evidence for adequacy of tumor coverage. Target immobilization, setup error, and coverage of subclinical disease must be addressed carefully before successful implementation of IMRT to maximize its ability to escalate dose and to spare normal tissue simultaneously and safely.