The purpose of this study was to compare two different styles of prostate IGRT: bony landmark (BL) setup vs. fiducial markers (FM) setup. Twenty-nine prostate patients were treated with daily BL setup and 30 patients with daily FM setup. Delivered dose distribution was reconstructed on cone-beam CT (CBCT) acquired once a week immediately after the alignment. Target dose coverage was evaluated by the proportion of the CTV encompassed by the 95% isodose. Original plans employed 1 cm safety margin. Alternative plans assuming smaller 7 mm margin between CTV and PTV were evaluated in the same way. Rectal and bladder volumes were compared with initial ones. While the margin reduction in case of BL setup makes the prostate coverage significantly worse (p = 0.0003, McNemar's test), in case of FM setup with the reduced 7 mm margin, the prostate coverage is even better compared to BL setup with 10 mm margin (p = 0.049, Fisher's exact test). Moreover, partial volumes of organs at risk irradiated with a specific dose can be significantly lowered (p < 0.0001, unpaired t-test). Reducing of safety margin is not acceptable in case of BL setup, while the margin can be lowered from 10 mm to 7 mm in case of FM setup.

Department of Medical Biophysics Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove Charles University Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Kupelian PA, Langen KM, Willoughby TR, Zeidan OA, Meeks SL. Image‐guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treating a moving target. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18(1):58–66. PubMed

Balter JM, Sandler HM, Lam K, Bree RL, Lichter AS, ten Haken RK. Measurement of prostate movement over the course of routine radiotherapy using implanted markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(1):113–18. PubMed

Schallenkamp JM, Herman MG, Kruse JJ, Pisansky TM. Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(3):800–11. PubMed

Tanyi JA, He T, Summers PA, et al. Assessment of planning target volume margins for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy of the prostate gland: role of daily inter‐ and intrafraction motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(5):1579–85. PubMed

Barney BM, Lee RJ, Handrahan D, Welsh KT, Cook JT, Sause WT. Image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer comparing kV imaging of fiducial markers with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(1):301–05. PubMed

Shi W, Li JG, Zlotecki RA, et al. Evaluation of kV cone‐beam CT performance for prostate IGRT: a comparison of automatic grey‐value alignment to implanted fiducial‐marker alignment. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34(1):16–21. PubMed

Ghilezan JM, Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, et al. Prostate gland motion assessed with cine‐magnetic resonance imaging (cine‐MRI). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(2):406–17. PubMed

Sripadam R, Stratford J, Henry AM, Jackson A, Moore CJ, Price P. Rectal motion can reduce CTV coverage and increase rectal dose during prostate radiotherapy: a daily cone‐beam CT study. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(3):312–17. PubMed

Varadhan R, Hui SK, Way S, Nisi K. Assessing prostate, bladder and rectal doses during image guided radiation therapy – need for plan adaptation? J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(3):56–74. PubMed PMC

Yoo S and Yin FF. Dosimetric feasibility of cone‐beam CT‐based treatment planning compared to CT‐based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(5):1553–61. PubMed

Yang Y, Schreibmann E, Li T, Wang C, Xing L. Evaluation of on‐board kV cone beam CT (CBCT)‐based dose calculation. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(3):685–705. PubMed

van Zijtveld M, Dirkx M, Breuers M, Kuipers R, Heijmen B. Evaluation of the ‘dose of the day’ for IMRT prostate cancer patients derived from portal dose measurements and cone‐beam CT. Radiother Oncol. 2010;96(2):172–77. PubMed

Pawlowski JM, Yang ES, Malcolm AW, Coffey CW, Ding GX. Reduction of dose delivered to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients via image‐guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3):924–34. PubMed

Hatton JA, Greer PB, Tang C, et al. Does the planning dose‐volume histogram represent treatment doses in image‐guided prostate radiation therapy? Assessment with cone‐beam computerised tomography scans. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98(2):162–68. PubMed

Paluska P, Hanus J, Sefrova J, et al. Utilization of cone‐beam CT for offline evaluation of target volume coverage during prostate image‐guided radiotherapy based on bony anatomy alignment. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2012;17(3):134–40. PubMed PMC

Kasaova L, Sirak I, Jansa J, Paluska P, Petera J. Daily prostate volume and position monitoring using implanted gold markers and on‐board imaging during radiotherapy. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2011;54(4):149–52. PubMed

van der Wielen GJ, Mutanga TF, Incrocci L, et al. Deformation of prostate and seminal vesicles relative to intraprostatic fiducial markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(5):1604–11. PubMed

Liang J, Wu Q, Yan D. The role of seminal vesicle motion in target margin assessment for online image‐guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(3):935–43. PubMed PMC

Mutanga TF, de Boer HCJ, van der Wielen GJ, Hoogeman MS, Incrocci L, Heijmen BJM. Margin evaluation in the presence of deformation, rotation, and translation in prostate and entire seminal vesicle irradiation with daily marker‐based setup corrections. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(4):1160–67. PubMed

Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, Tucker SL, Deasy JO. Radiation dose‐volume effects in radiation‐induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S123–S129. PubMed PMC