Single Institution’s Dosimetry and IGRT Analysis of Prostate SBRT

Radiation Oncology

W Robert Lee¹  Fang-Fang Yin¹  Lulin Yuan¹  Taoran Li¹  Q Jackie Wu¹ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3295, Durham, NC 27710, USA

关键词: Clinical trial;    IGRT;    Prostate;    SBRT;    Stereotactic body radiation therapy;   

Others  :  1152982
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-215

 received in 2013-03-28, accepted in 2013-09-03,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background and purpose

To report single institution’s IGRT and dosimetry analysis on the 37 Gy/5 fraction prostate SBRT clinical trial.

Materials/methods

The IRB (Duke University Medical Center) approved clinical trial has treated 28 patients with stage T1-T2c prostate cancer with a regimen of 37 Gy in 5 fractions using IMRT and IGRT protocols since 2009. The clinical trial protocol requires CT/MRI imaging for the prostate delineation; a margin of 3 mm in posterior direction and 5 mm elsewhere for planning target volume (PTV); and strict dose constraints for primary organs-at-risks (OARs) including the bladder, the rectum, and the femoral heads. Rigid IGRT process is also an essential part of the protocol. Precise patient and prostate positioning and dynamic tracking of prostate motion are performed with electromagnetic localization device (Calypso) and on-board imaging (OBI) system. Initial patient and target alignment is performed based on fiducials with OBI imaging system and Calypso system. Prior to treatment, cone-beam CT (CBCT) is performed for soft tissue alignment verification. During treatment, per-beam corrections for target motion using translational couch movements is performed before irradiating each field, based on electromagnetic localization or on-board imaging localization. Dosimetric analysis on target coverage and OAR sparing is performed based on key DVH parameters corresponding to protocol guidance. IGRT analysis is focused on the average frequency and magnitude of corrections during treatment, and overall intra-fractional target drift. A margin value is derived using actual target motion data and the margin recipe from Van Herk et al., and is compared to the current one in practice. In addition, cumulative doses with and without per-beam IGRT corrections are compared to assess the benefit of online IGRT.

Results

1. No deviation has been found in 10 of 14 dosimetric constraints, with minor deviations in the rest 4 constraints.

2. Online IGRT techniques including Calypso, OBI and CBCT supplement each other to create an effective and reliable system on tracking target and correcting intra-fractional motion.

3. On average ½ corrections have been performed per fraction, with magnitude of (0.22 ± 0.11) cm. Average target drift magnitude is (0.7 ± 1.3) mm in one direction during each fraction.

4. Benefit from per-beam correction in overall review is small: most differences from no correction are < 0.1 Gy for PTV D1cc/Dmean and < 1%/1.5 cc for OAR parameters. Up to 1.5 Gy reduction was seen in PTV D99% without online correction. Largest differences for OARs are −4.1 cc and +1.6 cc in the V50% for the bladder and the rectum, respectively. However, online IGRT helps to catch unexpected significant target motion.

5. Margin derived from actual target motion is 2.5 mm isotropic, consist with current practice.

Conclusions

Clinical experience of the 37 Gy/5-fraction prostate SBRT from a single institution is reported. Dosimetric analysis demonstrated excellent target coverage and OAR sparing for our first 28 patients in this trial. Online IGRT techniques implemented are both effective and reliable. Per-beam correction in general provides a small benefit in dosimetry. Target motion measured by online localization devices confirms that current margin selection is adequate.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Wu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Miles EF, Lee WR: Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: a critical review. Semin Radiat Oncol 2008, 18(1):41-47.
• [2]Fowler JF: The radiobiology of prostate cancer including new aspects of fractionated radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2005, 44(3):265-276.
• [3]Fowler JF, et al.: What hypofractionated protocols should be tested for prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 56(4):1093-1104.
• [4]Arcangeli S, Scorsetti M, Alongi F: Will SBRT replace conventional radiotherapy in patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer? A review. Critical Rev Oncol/hematol 2012, 84(1):101-108.
• [5]Madsen BL, et al.: Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 Gy in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67(4):1099-1105.
• [6]Bolzicco G, et al.: Image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: preliminary clinical results. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2010, 9(5):473-477.
• [7]Katz AJ, et al.: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for organ-confined prostate cancer. BMC Urol 2010, 10:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Freeman DE, King CR: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: five-year outcomes. Radiation Oncol 2011, 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Alongi F, et al.: Linac based SBRT for prostate cancer in 5 fractions with VMAT and flattening filter free beams: preliminary report of a phase II study. Radiation Oncol 2013, 8(1):171. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]ICRU Report 50: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1993.
• [11]ICRU Report 62: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999.
• [12]van Herk M: Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004, 14(1):52-64.
• [13]Feuvret L, et al.: Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64(2):333-342.
• [14]Shaw E, et al.: Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90–05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 47(2):291-298.
• [15]Paddick I: A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 2000, 93(Suppl 3):219-222.