Intrafraction Prostate Motion Management for Ultra-Hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Artificial intelligence-based motion tracking in cancer radiotherapy: A review

Radiotherapy aims to deliver a prescribed dose to the tumor while sparing neighboring organs at risk (OARs). Increasingly complex treatment techniques such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and proton therapy have been developed to deliver doses more precisely to the target. While such technologies have improved dose delivery, the implementation of intra-fraction motion management to verify tumor position at the time of treatment has become increasingly relevant. Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently demonstrated great potential for real-time tracking of tumors during treatment. However, AI-based motion management faces several challenges, including bias in training data, poor transparency, difficult data collection, complex workflows and quality assurance, and limited sample sizes. This review presents the AI algorithms used for chest, abdomen, and pelvic tumor motion management/tracking for radiotherapy and provides a literature summary on the topic. We will also discuss the limitations of these AI-based studies and propose potential improvements.

Monitoring Intrafraction Motion of the Prostate During Radiation Therapy: Suggested Practice Points From a Focused Review

PURPOSE

External beam radiation therapy to the prostate is typically delivered after verification of prostatic position with image guidance. Prostate motion can occur during the delivery of each radiation treatment between the time of localization imaging and completion of treatment. The objective of this work is to review the literature on intrafraction motion (IFM) of the prostate during radiation therapy and offer clinical recommendations on management.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted on prostate motion during prostate cancer radiation therapy. Information was organized around 3 key clinical questions, followed by an evidence-based recommendation.

RESULTS

IFM of the prostate during radiation therapy is typically ≤3 mm and is unlikely to compromise prostate dosimetry to a clinically meaningful degree for men treated in a relatively short treatment duration with planning target volume (PTV) margins of ≥3 to 5 mm. IFM of 5 mm or more has been observed in up to ∼10% of treatment fractions, with limited dosimetric effect related to the infrequency of occurrence and longer fractionation of therapy. IFM can be monitored in continuous or discontinuous fashion with a variety of imaging platforms. Correction of IFM may have the greatest value when tighter PTV margins are desired (such as with stereotactic body radiation therapy or intraprostatic nodule boosting), ultrahypofractionated courses, or when treatment time exceeds several minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

This focused review summarizes literature and provides practical recommendations regarding IFM in the treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy.

Ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy: Dosimetric impact of real-time intrafraction prostate motion and daily anatomical changes

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess the differences between planned and delivered dose during ultra-hypofractionated (UHF) prostate cancer treatments, by evaluating the dosimetric impact of daily anatomical variations alone, and in combination with prostate intrafraction motion.

METHODS

Prostate intrafraction motion was recorded with a transperineal ultrasound probe in 15 patients treated by UHF radiotherapy (36.25 Gy/5 fractions). The dosimetric objective was to cover 99 % of the clinical target volume with the 100 % prescription isodose line. After treatment, planning CT (pCT) images were deformably registered onto daily Cone Beam CT to generate pseudo-CT for dose accumulation (accumulated CT, aCT). The interplay effect was accounted by synchronizing prostatic shifts and beam geometry. Finally, the shifted dose maps were accumulated (moved-accumulated CT, maCT).

RESULTS

No significant change in daily CTV volumes was observed. Conversely, CTV V100% was 98.2 ± 0.8 % and 94.7 ± 2.6 % on aCT and maCT, respectively, compared with 99.5 ± 0.2 % on pCT (p < 0.0001). Bladder volume was smaller than planned in 76 % of fractions and D5cc was 33.8 ± 3.2 Gy and 34.4 ± 3.4 Gy on aCT (p = 0.02) and maCT (p = 0.01) compared with the pCT (36.0 ± 1.1 Gy). The rectum was smaller than planned in 50.3 % of fractions, but the dosimetric differences were not statistically significant, except for D1cc, found smaller on the maCT (33.2 ± 3.2 Gy, p = 0.02) compared with the pCT (35.3 ± 0.7 Gy).

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical variations and prostate movements had more important dosimetric impact than anatomical variations alone, although, in some cases, the two phenomena compensated. Therefore, an efficient IGRT protocol is required for treatment implementation to reduce setup errors and control intrafraction motion.