Calculation of planning margins for different verification techniques in radical prostate radiotherapy

Assessing the impact of intrafraction motion correction on PTV margins and target and OAR dosimetry for single-fraction free-breathing lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

The objective of this research is to investigate intrafraction motion correction on planning target volume (PTV) margin requirements and target and organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry in single-fraction lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Sixteen patients (15 with upper lobe lesions, 1 with a middle lobe lesion) were treated with single-fraction lung SBRT. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were acquired before the treatment, between the arcs, and after the delivery of the treatment fraction. Shifts from the reference images were recorded in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and lateral (LAT) dimensions. The deviations from the reference image were calculated for 3 clinical scenarios: not applying intratreatment couch shifts and not correcting for pretreatment deviations < 3 mm ( scenario 1), not applying intratreatment couch shifts and correcting for pretreatment deviations < 3 mm ( scenario 2), and applying all pre- and intratreatment couch shifts (scenario 3). PTV margins were determined using the van Herk formalism for each scenario and maximum and average deviations were assessed. The clinical scenarios were modelled in the treatment planning system based on each patient dataset to assess target and OAR dosimetry. Calculated lower-bound PTV margins in the AP, SI, and LAT dimensions were [4.6, 3.5, 2.3] mm in scenario 1, [4.6, 2.4, 2.2] mm in scenario 2, and [1.7, 1.2, 1.0] mm in scenario 3. The margins are lower bounds because they do not include contributions from nonmotion related errors. Average and maximum intrafraction deviations were larger in the AP dimension compared to the SI and LAT dimensions for all scenarios. A unidimensional movement (several mm) in the negative AP dimension was observed in clinical scenarios 1 and 2 but not scenario 3. Average intrafraction deviation vectors were 1.2, 1.1, and 0.3 mm for scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Modelled clinical scenarios revealed that using scenario 3 yields significantly fewer treatment plan objective failures compared to scenarios 1 and 2 using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Intratreatment motion correction between each arc may enable reductions PTV margin requirements. It may also compensate for unidimensional negative AP movement, and improve target and OAR dosimetry.

A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer

AIM

To compare the radiotherapy technique used in a randomised trial with VMAT and an in-house technique for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

Techniques are evolving with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) commonly used. The CHHiP trial used a 3 PTV forward planned IMRT technique (FP_CH). Our centre has adopted a simpler two PTV technique with locally calculated margins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

25 patients treated with FP_CH to 60 Gy in 20 fractions were re-planned with VMAT (VMAT_CH) and a two PTV protocol (VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48). Target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), monitor units (MU) and dose to the rectum, bladder, hips and penile bulb were compared.

RESULTS

PTV coverage was high for all techniques. VMAT_CH plans had better CI than FP_CH (p ≤  0.05). VMAT_60/52/48 plans had better CI than VMAT_CH. FP_CH had better HI and fewer MU than VMAT (p ≤  0.05). More favourable rectum doses were found for VMAT _CH than FP_CH (V_48.6, V_52.8, V₅₇, p ≤  0.05) with less difference for bladder (p ≥  0.05). Comparing VMAT_CH to VMAT_60/52/48 showed little differences for the bladder and rectum but VMAT_CH had larger penile bulb doses (V_40.8, V_48.6, mean, D_2, p ≤  0.05). Femoral head doses (V_40.8) were similarly low for all techniques (p = ≥ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

VMAT produced more conformal plans with smaller rectum doses compared to FP_CH albeit worse HI and more MU. VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48 plans had similar rectal and bladder doses to VMAT_CH but better CI and penile bulb doses which may reduce toxicity.