Prostate deformation during hypofractionated radiotherapy: an analysis of implanted fiducial marker displacement.
Fiducial Markers
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Movement
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Prostheses and Implants
Radiation Dose Hypofractionation
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Deformation
Prostate
Rigid body
Stereotactic body radiotherapy
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Dec 2021
07 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
09
05
2021
accepted:
23
11
2021
entrez:
8
12
2021
pubmed:
9
12
2021
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To report prostate deformation during treatment, based on an analysis of fiducial marker positional differences in a large sample. This study included 144 patients treated with prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy after implantation in each of 4 gold fiducial markers (FMs), which were located and numbered consistently. The center of mass of the FMs was recorded for every pair of X-ray images taken during treatment. The distance between each pair of fiducials in the live X-ray images is calculated and compared with the respective distances as determined in the CT volume. The RBE is the difference between these distances. Mean RBE and intrafraction and interfraction RBE were evaluated. The intrafraction and intefraction RBE variability were defined as the standard deviation, respectively, of all RBE during 1 treatment fraction and of the mean daily RBE over the whole treatment course. We analyzed 720 treatment fractions comprising 24,453 orthogonal X-ray image acquisitions. We observed a trend to higher RBE related to FM4 (apex) during treatment. The fiducial marker in the prostate apex could not be used in 16% of observations, in which RBE was > 2.5 mm. The mean RBEavg was 0.93 ± 0.39 mm (range 0.32-1.79 mm) over the 5 fractions. The RBEavg was significantly lower for the first and second fraction compared with the others (P < .001). The interfraction variability of RBEavg was 0.26 ± 0.16 mm (range 0.04-0.74 mm). The mean intrafraction variability of all FMs was 0.45 ± 0.25 mm. The highest Pearson correlation coefficient was observed between FM2 and FM3 (middle left and right prostate) (R = 0.78; P < .001). Every combination with FM4 yielded lower coefficients (range 0.66-0.71; P < .001), indicating different deformation of the prostate apex. Ideally, prostate deformation is generally small, but it is very sensitive to rectal and bladder filling. We observed RBE up to 11.3 mm. The overall correlation between FMs was affected by shifts of individual fiducials, indicating that the prostate is not a "rigid" organ. Systematic change of RBE average between subsequent fractions indicates a systematic change in prostate shape.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To report prostate deformation during treatment, based on an analysis of fiducial marker positional differences in a large sample.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
This study included 144 patients treated with prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy after implantation in each of 4 gold fiducial markers (FMs), which were located and numbered consistently. The center of mass of the FMs was recorded for every pair of X-ray images taken during treatment. The distance between each pair of fiducials in the live X-ray images is calculated and compared with the respective distances as determined in the CT volume. The RBE is the difference between these distances. Mean RBE and intrafraction and interfraction RBE were evaluated. The intrafraction and intefraction RBE variability were defined as the standard deviation, respectively, of all RBE during 1 treatment fraction and of the mean daily RBE over the whole treatment course.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed 720 treatment fractions comprising 24,453 orthogonal X-ray image acquisitions. We observed a trend to higher RBE related to FM4 (apex) during treatment. The fiducial marker in the prostate apex could not be used in 16% of observations, in which RBE was > 2.5 mm. The mean RBEavg was 0.93 ± 0.39 mm (range 0.32-1.79 mm) over the 5 fractions. The RBEavg was significantly lower for the first and second fraction compared with the others (P < .001). The interfraction variability of RBEavg was 0.26 ± 0.16 mm (range 0.04-0.74 mm). The mean intrafraction variability of all FMs was 0.45 ± 0.25 mm. The highest Pearson correlation coefficient was observed between FM2 and FM3 (middle left and right prostate) (R = 0.78; P < .001). Every combination with FM4 yielded lower coefficients (range 0.66-0.71; P < .001), indicating different deformation of the prostate apex.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Ideally, prostate deformation is generally small, but it is very sensitive to rectal and bladder filling. We observed RBE up to 11.3 mm. The overall correlation between FMs was affected by shifts of individual fiducials, indicating that the prostate is not a "rigid" organ. Systematic change of RBE average between subsequent fractions indicates a systematic change in prostate shape.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34876173
doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01958-4
pii: 10.1186/s13014-021-01958-4
pmc: PMC8650520
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
235Subventions
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
ID : FNOs/2021
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
ID : FNOs/2021
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):1604-1611.e3
pubmed: 19028284
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Apr 1;88(5):1154-60
pubmed: 24661668
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):240-7
pubmed: 12694845
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Oct;151:88-94
pubmed: 32622779
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):368-75
pubmed: 25445555
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Sep 1;72(1):236-46
pubmed: 18722274
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jan 1;61(1):228-38
pubmed: 15629616
Front Oncol. 2011 Dec 08;1:48
pubmed: 22655248
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Aug 1;62(5):1291-6
pubmed: 16029784
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003 Feb;2(1):25-30
pubmed: 12625751
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):400-7
pubmed: 22019244
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Oct 21;53(20):5623-34
pubmed: 18799831
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1624-32
pubmed: 22209149
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1097-105
pubmed: 12128107
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):48-56
pubmed: 17084546
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 May 1;101(1):136-143
pubmed: 29482869
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 29;10(6):e0131822
pubmed: 26120840
JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1233-9
pubmed: 16160131
Eur Urol. 2009 Jul;56(1):40-2
pubmed: 19246151