skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Dosimetric evaluation of daily rigid and nonrigid geometric correction strategies during on-line image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a geometric image guidance strategy that simultaneously correct for various inter-fractional rigid and nonrigid geometric uncertainties in an on-line environment, using field shape corrections (called the 'MU-MLC' technique). The effectiveness of this strategy was compared with two other simpler on-line image guidance strategies that are more commonly used in the clinic. To this end, five prostate cancer patients, with at least 15 treatment CT studies each, were analyzed. The prescription dose was set to the maximum dose that did not violate the rectum and bladder dose-volume constraints, and hence, was unique to each patient. Deformable image registration and dose-tracking was performed on each CT image to obtain the cumulative treatment dose distributions. From this, maximum, minimum, and mean dose, as well as generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were calculated for each image guidance strategy. As expected, some dosimetric differences in the clinical target volume (CTV) were observed between the three image guidance strategies investigated. For example, up to {+-}2% discrepancy in prostate minimum dose were observed among the techniques. Of them, only the 'MU-MLC' technique did not reduce the prostate minimum dose for all patients (i.e., {>=}100%). However, the differences were clinicallymore » not significant to indicate the preference of one strategy over another, when using a uniform 5 mm margin size. For the organ-at-risks (OARs), the large rectum sparing effect ({<=}5.7 Gy, gEUD) and bladder overdosing effect ({<=}16 Gy, gEUD) were observed. This was likely due to the use of bladder contrast during CT simulation studies which was not done during the treatment CT studies. Therefore, ultimately, strategies to maintain relatively constant rectum and bladder volumes, throughout the treatment course, are required to minimize this effect. In conclusion, the results here suggest that simple translational corrections based on three-dimensional (3D) images is adequate to maintain target coverage, for margin sizes at least as large as 5 mm. In addition, due to large fluctuations in OAR volumes, innovative image guidance strategies are needed to minimize dose and maintain consistent sparing during the whole course of radiation therapy.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. Radiation Treatment Program, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario N6A 4L6 (Canada) and Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B8 (Canada)
  2. (Canada) and Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B8 (Canada) and Department of Oncology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B8 (Canada)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20853926
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 34; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1118/1.2405325; (c) 2007 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; CARCINOMAS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRECTIONS; DOSIMETRY; EVALUATION; FLUCTUATIONS; IMAGES; PATIENTS; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; SIMULATION

Citation Formats

Song, William Y., Wong, Eugene, Bauman, Glenn S., Battista, Jerry J., Van Dyk, Jake, and Radiation Treatment Program, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario N6A 4L6. Dosimetric evaluation of daily rigid and nonrigid geometric correction strategies during on-line image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1118/1.2405325.
Song, William Y., Wong, Eugene, Bauman, Glenn S., Battista, Jerry J., Van Dyk, Jake, & Radiation Treatment Program, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario N6A 4L6. Dosimetric evaluation of daily rigid and nonrigid geometric correction strategies during on-line image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.2405325.
Song, William Y., Wong, Eugene, Bauman, Glenn S., Battista, Jerry J., Van Dyk, Jake, and Radiation Treatment Program, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario N6A 4L6. Mon . "Dosimetric evaluation of daily rigid and nonrigid geometric correction strategies during on-line image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.2405325.
@article{osti_20853926,
title = {Dosimetric evaluation of daily rigid and nonrigid geometric correction strategies during on-line image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer},
author = {Song, William Y. and Wong, Eugene and Bauman, Glenn S. and Battista, Jerry J. and Van Dyk, Jake and Radiation Treatment Program, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario N6A 4L6},
abstractNote = {The purpose of this study is to evaluate a geometric image guidance strategy that simultaneously correct for various inter-fractional rigid and nonrigid geometric uncertainties in an on-line environment, using field shape corrections (called the 'MU-MLC' technique). The effectiveness of this strategy was compared with two other simpler on-line image guidance strategies that are more commonly used in the clinic. To this end, five prostate cancer patients, with at least 15 treatment CT studies each, were analyzed. The prescription dose was set to the maximum dose that did not violate the rectum and bladder dose-volume constraints, and hence, was unique to each patient. Deformable image registration and dose-tracking was performed on each CT image to obtain the cumulative treatment dose distributions. From this, maximum, minimum, and mean dose, as well as generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were calculated for each image guidance strategy. As expected, some dosimetric differences in the clinical target volume (CTV) were observed between the three image guidance strategies investigated. For example, up to {+-}2% discrepancy in prostate minimum dose were observed among the techniques. Of them, only the 'MU-MLC' technique did not reduce the prostate minimum dose for all patients (i.e., {>=}100%). However, the differences were clinically not significant to indicate the preference of one strategy over another, when using a uniform 5 mm margin size. For the organ-at-risks (OARs), the large rectum sparing effect ({<=}5.7 Gy, gEUD) and bladder overdosing effect ({<=}16 Gy, gEUD) were observed. This was likely due to the use of bladder contrast during CT simulation studies which was not done during the treatment CT studies. Therefore, ultimately, strategies to maintain relatively constant rectum and bladder volumes, throughout the treatment course, are required to minimize this effect. In conclusion, the results here suggest that simple translational corrections based on three-dimensional (3D) images is adequate to maintain target coverage, for margin sizes at least as large as 5 mm. In addition, due to large fluctuations in OAR volumes, innovative image guidance strategies are needed to minimize dose and maintain consistent sparing during the whole course of radiation therapy.},
doi = {10.1118/1.2405325},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 1,
volume = 34,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Mon Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • Purpose: To quantify the mitigation of geometric uncertainties achieved with the application of various patient setup techniques during the delivery of hypofractionated prostate cancer treatments, using tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability. Methods and Materials: Five prostate cancer patients with {approx}16 treatment CT studies, taken during the course of their radiation therapy (77 total), were analyzed. All patients were planned twice with an 18 MV six-field conformal technique, with 10- and 5-mm margin sizes, with various hypofractionation schedules (5 to 35 fractions). Subsequently, four clinically relevant patient setup techniques (laser guided and image guided) were simulated tomore » deliver such schedules. Results: As hypothesized, the impact of geometric uncertainties on clinical outcomes increased with more hypofractionated schedules. However, the absolute gain in TCP due to hypofractionation (up to 21.8% increase) was significantly higher compared with the losses due to geometric uncertainties (up to 8.6% decrease). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that, although the impact of geometric uncertainties on the treatment outcomes increases as the number of fractions decrease, the reduction in TCP due to the uncertainties does not significantly offset the expected theoretical gain in TCP by hypofractionation.« less
  • Purpose: Setup errors and prostate intrafraction motion are main sources of localization uncertainty in prostate cancer radiation therapy. This study evaluates four different imaging modalities 3D ultrasound (US), kV planar images, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and implanted electromagnetic transponders (Calypso/Varian) to assess inter- and intrafraction localization errors during intensity-modulated radiation therapy based treatment of prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty-seven prostate cancer patients were enrolled in a prospective IRB-approved study and treated to a total dose of 75.6 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). Overall, 1100 fractions were evaluated. For each fraction, treatment targets were localized using US, kV planar images, and CBCT in amore » sequence defined to determine setup offsets relative to the patient skin tattoos, intermodality differences, and residual errors for each patient and patient cohort. Planning margins, following van Herk's formalism, were estimated based on error distributions. Calypso-based localization was not available for the first eight patients, therefore centroid positions of implanted gold-seed markers imaged prior to and immediately following treatment were used as a motion surrogate during treatment. For the remaining 19 patients, Calypso transponders were used to assess prostate intrafraction motion. Results: The means ({mu}), and standard deviations (SD) of the systematic ({Sigma}) and random errors ({sigma}) of interfraction prostate shifts (relative to initial skin tattoo positioning), as evaluated using CBCT, kV, and US, averaged over all patients and fractions, were: [{mu}{sub CBCT}= (-1.2, 0.2, 1.1) mm, {Sigma}{sub CBCT}= (3.0, 1.4, 2.4) mm, {sigma}{sub CBCT}= (3.2, 2.2, 2.5) mm], [{mu}{sub kV}= (-2.9, -0.4, 0.5) mm, {Sigma}{sub kV}= (3.4, 3.1, 2.6) mm, {sigma}{sub kV}= (2.9, 2.0, 2.4) mm], and [{mu}{sub US}= (-3.6, -1.4, 0.0) mm, {Sigma}{sub US}= (3.3, 3.5, 2.8) mm, {sigma}{sub US}= (4.1, 3.8, 3.6) mm], in the anterior-posterior (A/P), superior-inferior (S/I), and the left-right (L/R) directions, respectively. In the treatment protocol, adjustment of couch was guided by US images. Residual setup errors as assessed by kV images were found to be: {mu}{sub residual}= (-0.4, 0.2, 0.2) mm, {Sigma}{sub residual}= (1.0, 1.0,0.7) mm, and {sigma}{sub residual}= (2.5, 2.3, 1.8) mm. Intrafraction prostate motion, evaluated using electromagnetic transponders, was: {mu}{sub intrafxn}= (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) mm, {Sigma}{sub intrafxn}= (1.3, 1.5, 0.6) mm, and {sigma}{sub intrafxn}= (2.6, 2.4, 1.4) mm. Shifts between pre- and post-treatment kV images were: {mu}{sub kV(post-pre)}= (-0.3, 0.8, -0.2), {Sigma}{sub kV(post-pre)}= (2.4, 2.7, 2.1) mm, and {sigma}{sub kV(post-pre)}= (2.7, 3.2, 3.1) mm. Relative to skin tattoos, planning margins for setup error were within 10-11 mm for all image-based modalities. The use of image guidance was shown to reduce these margins to less than 5 mm. Margins to compensate for both residual setup (interfraction) errors as well as intrafraction motion were 6.6, 6.8, and 3.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively. Conclusions: Analysis of interfraction setup errors, performed with US, CBCT, planar kV images, and electromagnetic transponders, from a large dataset revealed intermodality shifts were comparable (within 3-4 mm). Interfraction planning margins, relative to setup based on skin marks, were generally within the 10 mm prostate-to-planning target volume margin used in our clinic. With image guidance, interfraction residual planning margins were reduced to approximately less than 4 mm. These findings are potentially important for dose escalation studies using smaller margins to better protect normal tissues.« less
  • In order to quantify the differences between ultrasound-imaging and megavoltage-CT (MVCT) daily prostate localization in prostate-cancer radiotherapy and their dosimetric impacts, daily shifts were analyzed for a total of 140 prostate cancer patients; 106 positioned using ultrasound-based imaging [B-mode Acquisition and Targeting (BAT)], and 34 using the MVCT from a TomoTherapy Hi-Art unit. The shifts indicated by the two systems were compared statistically along the right/left (R/L), superior/inferior (S/I), and anterior/posterior (A/P) directions. The systematic and random variations among the daily alignments were calculated. Margins to account for these shifts were estimated. The mean shifts and standard deviations along themore » R/L, S/I, and A/P directions were -0.11{+-}3.80, 0.67{+-}4.67, and 2.71{+-}6.31 mm for BAT localizations and -0.98{+-}5.13, 0.27{+-}3.35, and 1.00{+-}4.22 mm for MVCT localizations, respectively. The systematic and random variations in daily shifts based on MVCT were generally smaller than those based on BAT, especially along the A/P direction. A t-test showed this difference to be statistically significant. The planning target volume margins in the A/P direction estimated to account for daily variations were 8.81 and 14.66 mm based on MVCT and BAT data, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the daily prostate movement pattern between the first few fractions and the remaining fractions. Dosimetric comparison of MVCT and BAT prostate alignments was performed for seven fractions from a patient. The degradation from the plan caused by the MVCT alignment is trivial, while that by BAT is substantial. The MVCT technique results in smaller variations in daily shifts than ultrasound imaging, indicating that MVCT is more reliable and precise for prostate localization. Ultrasound-based localization may overestimate the daily prostate motion, particularly in the A/P direction, negatively impacting prostate dose coverage and rectal sparing.« less
  • Purpose: During stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer, an inflatable endorectal balloon (ERB) may be used to reduce motion of the target and reduce the dose to the posterior rectal wall. This work assessed the dosimetric impact of manual interventions on ERB position in patients receiving prostate SBRT and investigated the impact of ERB interventions on prostate shape. Methods: The data of seven consecutive patients receiving SBRT for the treatment of clinical stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer enrolled in a multi-institutional, IRB-approved trial were analyzed. The SBRT dose was 50 Gy in five fractions to amore » planning target volume (PTV) that included the prostate (implanted with three fiducial markers) with a 3-5 mm margin. All plans were based on simulation images that included an ERB inflated with 60 cm{sup 3} of air. Daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging was performed to localize the PTV, and an automated fusion with the planning images yielded displacements required for PTV relocalization. When the ERB volume and/or position were judged to yield inaccurate repositioning, manual adjustment (ERB reinflation and/or repositioning) was performed. Based on all 59 CBCT image sets acquired, a deformable registration algorithm was used to determine the dose received by, displacement of, and deformation of the prostate, bladder (BLA), and anterior rectal wall (ARW). This dose tracking methodology was applied to images taken before and after manual adjustment of the ERB (intervention), and the delivered dose was compared to that which would have been delivered in the absence of intervention. Results: Interventions occurred in 24 out of 35 (69%) of the treated fractions. The direct effect of these interventions was an increase in the prostate radiation dose that included 95% of the PTV (D95) from 9.6 {+-} 1.0 to 10.0 {+-} 0.2 Gy (p = 0.06) and an increase in prostate coverage from 94.0% {+-} 8.5% to 97.8% {+-} 1.9% (p = 0.03). Additionally, ERB interventions reduced prostate deformation in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, reduced errors in the sagittal rotation of the prostate, and increased the similarity in shape of the prostate to the radiotherapy plan (increased Dice coefficient from 0.76 {+-} 0.06 to 0.80 {+-} 0.04, p = 0.01). Postintervention decreases in prostate volume receiving less than the prescribed dose and decreases in the voxel-wise displacement of the prostate, bladder, and anterior rectal wall were observed, which resulted in improved dose-volume histogram (DVH) characteristics. Conclusions: Image-guided interventions in ERB volume and/or position during prostate SBRT were necessary to ensure the delivery of the dose distribution as planned. ERB interventions resulted in reductions in prostate deformations that would have prevented accurate localization of patient anatomy.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate localization accuracy resulting from rigid registration of locally-advanced lung cancer targets using fully automatic and semi-automatic protocols for image-guided radiation therapy. Methods: Seventeen lung cancer patients, fourteen also presenting with involved lymph nodes, received computed tomography (CT) scans once per week throughout treatment under active breathing control. A physician contoured both lung and lymph node targets for all weekly scans. Various automatic and semi-automatic rigid registration techniques were then performed for both individual and simultaneous alignments of the primary gross tumor volume (GTV{sub P}) and involved lymph nodes (GTV{sub LN}) to simulate the localization process in image-guidedmore » radiation therapy. Techniques included ''standard'' (direct registration of weekly images to a planning CT), ''seeded'' (manual prealignment of targets to guide standard registration), ''transitive-based'' (alignment of pretreatment and planning CTs through one or more intermediate images), and ''rereferenced'' (designation of a new reference image for registration). Localization error (LE) was assessed as the residual centroid and border distances between targets from planning and weekly CTs after registration. Results: Initial bony alignment resulted in centroid LE of 7.3 {+-} 5.4 mm and 5.4 {+-} 3.4 mm for the GTV{sub P} and GTV{sub LN}, respectively. Compared to bony alignment, transitive-based and seeded registrations significantly reduced GTV{sub P} centroid LE to 4.7 {+-} 3.7 mm (p = 0.011) and 4.3 {+-} 2.5 mm (p < 1 x 10{sup -3}), respectively, but the smallest GTV{sub P} LE of 2.4 {+-} 2.1 mm was provided by rereferenced registration (p < 1 x 10{sup -6}). Standard registration significantly reduced GTV{sub LN} centroid LE to 3.2 {+-} 2.5 mm (p < 1 x 10{sup -3}) compared to bony alignment, with little additional gain offered by the other registration techniques. For simultaneous target alignment, centroid LE as low as 3.9 {+-} 2.7 mm and 3.8 {+-} 2.3 mm were achieved for the GTV{sub P} and GTV{sub LN}, respectively, using rereferenced registration. Conclusions: Target shape, volume, and configuration changes during radiation therapy limited the accuracy of standard rigid registration for image-guided localization in locally-advanced lung cancer. Significant error reductions were possible using other rigid registration techniques, with LE approaching the lower limit imposed by interfraction target variability throughout treatment.« less