What CTV-to-PTV margins should be applied for prostate irradiation? Four-dimensional quantitative assessment using model-based deformable image registration techniques.

PURPOSE To quantify adequate anisotropic clinical target volume (CTV)-to-planning target volume (PTV) margins for three different setup strategies used during prostate irradiation: (1) no setup corrections, (2) on-line corrections determined from bony anatomy, and (3) on-line corrections determined from gold markers. METHOD AND MATERIALS Three radiation oncologists independently delineated the CTV on computed tomography images of 30 prostate cancer patients. Eight repeat scans were acquired to allow simulation of the delivered dose distributions in changing geometry. Different registration approaches were taken to mimic the different setup strategies. A surface model-based deformable image registration system was used to warp the delivered dose distributions back to the dose in the planning computed tomography scan. On the basis of the geometric extent of the underdosed areas, a set of anisotropic margins was derived to ensure a minimal dose to the CTV of 95% for 90% of the patients. RESULTS Without setup correction, margins of approximately 11 mm for the corpus of the prostate and 15 mm for the seminal vesicles were required. These margins could be reduced to 8 and 13 mm when aligning the patient to the bony anatomy and to 3 and 8 mm aligning the patient to implanted gold markers. A larger margin at the apex was required to account for the significant observer variability and steep dose gradients at this location (11 mm using skin marker registration, 9 mm using bony anatomy registration, and 6 mm using gold marker registration). CONCLUSIONS Novel voxel tracking techniques have enabled us to calculate accumulated dose distributions and design accurate three-dimensional CTV-to-PTV margins for prostate irradiation.

[1]  D. Yan,et al.  Treatment of prostate cancer with radiotherapy: should the entire seminal vesicles be included in the clinical target volume? , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  Marco van Vulpen,et al.  Analysis of fiducial marker-based position verification in the external beam radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  Vladimir Pekar,et al.  Assessment of a model-based deformable image registration approach for radiation therapy planning. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  B. Heijmen,et al.  A protocol for the reduction of systematic patient setup errors with minimal portal imaging workload. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  M van Herk,et al.  Quantification and predictors of prostate position variability in 50 patients evaluated with multiple CT scans during conformal radiotherapy. , 1999, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[6]  Joos V Lebesque,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of delineation errors, setup errors, and organ motion during radiotherapy of bladder cancer. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  Patrick A Kupelian,et al.  Influence of intrafraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  K L Lam,et al.  Automated localization of the prostate at the time of treatment using implanted radiopaque markers: technical feasibility. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  H. Korman,et al.  Radical prostatectomy: is complete resection of the seminal vesicles really necessary? , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[10]  M van Herk,et al.  A verification procedure to improve patient set-up accuracy using portal images. , 1993, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  M. V. van Herk,et al.  The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  M Coghe,et al.  Routine clinical on-line portal imaging followed by immediate field adjustment using a tele-controlled patient couch. , 1992, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  J C Stroom,et al.  Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Jan J W Lagendijk,et al.  Comparison of megavoltage position verification for prostate irradiation based on bony anatomy and implanted fiducials. , 2003, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[15]  Michael G Herman,et al.  Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Jan-Jakob Sonke,et al.  Adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer using kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography: first clinical results. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Jan J W Lagendijk,et al.  Intrafraction motion of the prostate during external-beam radiation therapy: analysis of 427 patients with implanted fiducial markers. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  J Pouliot,et al.  Electronic portal imaging device detection of radioopaque markers for the evaluation of prostate position during megavoltage irradiation: a clinical study. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  M van Herk,et al.  Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.