Comparison of three strategies in management of independent movement of the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes.

PURPOSE Concurrent irradiation of the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes is technically challenging due to treating one moving target and one immobile target. The purposes of this article are to propose a new management strategy and to compare this strategy to the conventional isocenter shift method and the previously proposed MLC-shifting method. METHODS To cope with two target volumes (one moving and one immobile), the authors propose a new management strategy referred to as multiple adaptive plans (MAPs). This strategy involves the creation of a pool of plans for a number of potential prostate locations. Without requiring any additional hardware or software, the MAP strategy is to choose a plan from the pool that most closely matches the "prostate position of the day." This position can be determined by dual image registrations: One aligned to the implant markers in the prostate and the other aligned to the pelvic bones. This strategy was clinically implemented for a special patient with high risk prostate cancer and pathologically confirmed positive pelvic lymph nodes, requiring concurrent IMRT treatment of the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Because this patient had an abdominal kidney, small planning margins around the both targets were desired. Using 17 daily acquired megavoltage cone beam CTs (CBCTs), three sets of validation plans were calculated to retrospectively evaluate the MAP strategy as well as the isoshifting and MLC-shifting strategies. RESULTS According to the validation plans, MAP, isoshifting, and MLC-shifting strategies resulted in D95 of the prostate > 95% of the daily dose on 65%, 100%, and 100% treatment days, respectively. Similarly, D95 of the pelvic lymph nodal was > 95% of the daily dose on 100%, 75%, and 94% of treatment days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS None of the above strategies simultaneously achieved all treatment goals. Among the three strategies, the MLC shifting was most successful. Validation plans based on daily CBCTs are useful to evaluate the effectiveness of the motion management strategies and to provide additional dose guidance if further dose compensation is needed.

[1]  D. McGowan The value of extended field radiation therapy in carcinoma of the prostate. , 1981, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  J. Cox,et al.  Local control and survival after external irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1981, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  W. Sause,et al.  Elective pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG 77-06. , 1988, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  C. Pelizzari,et al.  Evaluation of changes in the size and location of the prostate, seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum during a course of external beam radiation therapy. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  L. Verhey,et al.  The value of nonuniform margins for six-field conformal irradiation of localized prostate cancer. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  P Kijewski,et al.  Analysis of prostate and seminal vesicle motion: implications for treatment planning. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  R Mohan,et al.  Monte Carlo dose calculations for dynamic IMRT treatments. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  K. Langen,et al.  Organ motion and its management. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  R K Valicenti,et al.  Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Benjamin Movsas,et al.  A method for increased dose conformity and segment reduction for SMLC delivered IMRT treatment of the prostate. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  A fast dose calculation method based on table lookup for IMRT optimization. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Christian Scholz,et al.  Development and clinical application of a fast superposition algorithm in radiation therapy. , 2003, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  David A Jaffray,et al.  On-line aSi portal imaging of implanted fiducial markers for the reduction of interfraction error during conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Tony Falco,et al.  Comparison of bat system and a new 3D trans-abdominal ultrasound-based image-guided system for prostate daily localization during external beam radiotherapy , 2004 .

[15]  Alvaro Martinez,et al.  Lack of benefit of pelvic radiation in prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with high-dose radiation. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Marcel van Herk,et al.  Quantification of shape variation of prostate and seminal vesicles during external beam radiotherapy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  He Wang,et al.  An automatic CT-guided adaptive radiation therapy technique by online modification of multileaf collimator leaf positions for prostate cancer. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  Ralph Weissleder,et al.  Mapping of nodal disease in locally advanced prostate cancer: rethinking the clinical target volume for pelvic nodal irradiation based on vascular rather than bony anatomy. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  He Wang,et al.  Use of deformed intensity distributions for on-line modification of image-guided IMRT to account for interfractional anatomic changes. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  G. Salles,et al.  Inherited cytokine response and risk of lymphoma. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[21]  Yoshiya Yamada,et al.  Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[22]  He Wang,et al.  Dosimetric comparison of four target alignment methods for prostate cancer radiotherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  H. Lindsey Positive long-term outcomes for IMRT in prostate cancer. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[24]  Raj Shekhar,et al.  Direct aperture deformation: an interfraction image guidance strategy. , 2006, Medical physics.

[25]  G. Arcangeli,et al.  A study of the effect of setup errors and organ motion on prostate cancer treatment with IMRT. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[26]  J. Earle,et al.  Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  P. Xia,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves lymph node coverage and dose to critical structures compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[28]  Lei Xing,et al.  Evaluation of on-board kV cone beam CT (CBCT)-based dose calculation , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Ping Xia,et al.  An algorithm for shifting MLC shapes to adjust for daily prostate movement during concurrent treatment with pelvic lymph nodesa). , 2007, Medical physics.

[30]  Todd Pawlicki,et al.  A study of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with fiducials for localized prostate cancer including pelvic lymph nodes. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[31]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Effect of anatomic motion on proton therapy dose distributions in prostate cancer treatment. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[32]  Jean Pouliot,et al.  Correction of megavoltage cone-beam CT images for dose calculation in the head and neck region. , 2008, Medical physics.

[33]  I. Hsu,et al.  Proposed rectal dose constraints for patients undergoing definitive whole pelvic radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[34]  M. Flentje,et al.  Does Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) prevent additional toxicity of treating the pelvic lymph nodes compared to treatment of the prostate only? , 2008, Radiation oncology.

[35]  Jean Pouliot,et al.  Dose recalculation and the Dose-Guided Radiation Therapy (DGRT) process using megavoltage cone-beam CT. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.