Abstract
Background and purpose
During radiotherapy, prostate motion changes over time. Quantifying and accounting for this motion is essential. This study aimed to assess intra-fraction prostate motion and derive duration-dependent planning margins for two treatment techniques.
Material and methods
A four-dimension (4D) transperineal ultrasound Clarity® system was used to track prostate motion. We analysed 1913 fractions from 60 patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate. The mean VMAT treatment duration was 3.4 min. Extended monitoring was conducted weekly to simulate motion during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment (an additional seven minutes). A motion-time trend analysis was conducted and the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and IMRT treatments compared. Duration-dependent margins were calculated and anisotropic margins for VMAT and IMRT treatments were derived.
Results
There were statistically significant differences in the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and the simulated IMRT duration in the inferior (0.1 mm versus 0.3 mm) and posterior (−0.2 versus −0.4 mm) directions respectively (p ≪ 0.01). An intra-fraction motion trend inferiorly and posteriorly was observed. The recommended minimum anisotropic margins are 1.7 mm/2.7 mm (superior/inferior); 0.8 mm (left/right), 1.7 mm/2.9 mm (anterior/posterior) for VMAT treatments and 2.9 mm/4.3 mm (superior/inferior), 1.5 mm (left/right), 2.8 mm/4.8 mm (anterior/posterior) for IMRT treatments. Smaller anisotropic margins were required for VMAT compared to IMRT (differences ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm superiorly/inferiorly, 0.7 mm laterally and 1.1–1.9 mm anteriorly/posteriorly).
Conclusions
VMAT treatment is preferred over IMRT as prostate motion increases with time. Larger margins should be employed in the inferior and posterior directions for both treatment durations. Duration-dependent margins should be applied in the presence of prolonged imaging and verification time.
During radiotherapy, prostate motion changes over time. Quantifying and accounting for this motion is essential. This study aimed to assess intra-fraction prostate motion and derive duration-dependent planning margins for two treatment techniques.
Material and methods
A four-dimension (4D) transperineal ultrasound Clarity® system was used to track prostate motion. We analysed 1913 fractions from 60 patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate. The mean VMAT treatment duration was 3.4 min. Extended monitoring was conducted weekly to simulate motion during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment (an additional seven minutes). A motion-time trend analysis was conducted and the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and IMRT treatments compared. Duration-dependent margins were calculated and anisotropic margins for VMAT and IMRT treatments were derived.
Results
There were statistically significant differences in the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and the simulated IMRT duration in the inferior (0.1 mm versus 0.3 mm) and posterior (−0.2 versus −0.4 mm) directions respectively (p ≪ 0.01). An intra-fraction motion trend inferiorly and posteriorly was observed. The recommended minimum anisotropic margins are 1.7 mm/2.7 mm (superior/inferior); 0.8 mm (left/right), 1.7 mm/2.9 mm (anterior/posterior) for VMAT treatments and 2.9 mm/4.3 mm (superior/inferior), 1.5 mm (left/right), 2.8 mm/4.8 mm (anterior/posterior) for IMRT treatments. Smaller anisotropic margins were required for VMAT compared to IMRT (differences ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm superiorly/inferiorly, 0.7 mm laterally and 1.1–1.9 mm anteriorly/posteriorly).
Conclusions
VMAT treatment is preferred over IMRT as prostate motion increases with time. Larger margins should be employed in the inferior and posterior directions for both treatment durations. Duration-dependent margins should be applied in the presence of prolonged imaging and verification time.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 102-107 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology |
| Volume | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2018 |