Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:56:44.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dosimetric impact of manual adjustments following automated registration in prostate image-guided radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2017

Mohamed Nazmy ElBeltagi ,
Dean Harper  and
Lisa Coleman
Mohamed Nazmy ElBeltagi*
Affiliation:
St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland NCI Cairo University, Egypt
Dean Harper
Affiliation:
St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland
Lisa Coleman
Affiliation:
St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland
*
Correspondence to: Mohamed Nazmy ElBeltagi, MBBCh, MSc, PhD, FRCR, Consultant Radiation Oncology, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Rathgar, Dublin 6, Ireland. Tel: 0035 389 460 8541. E-mail: mnazmy@hotmail.com; nazmy.elbeltagi@slh.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

Although manual adjustment of automatic cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) matching may improve the target coverage in certain points of interest, concerns exist that this may lead to dosimetric uncertainties which would negate the theoretical benefit of this approach. The objective of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric impact of manual adjustments made after automatic bony registration on CBCT in prostate patients.

Methods

A total of 50 CBCT datasets of ten high-risk prostate cancer patients were randomly chosen. Each CBCT dataset was registered three times. Method (A): Automatic registration, Method (M1): Manual adjustment carried out by two experienced radiation therapists, Method (M2): Manual adjustment carried out by different radiation therapists with varying levels of experience. The clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), the bladder and the rectum were subsequently contoured on each CBCT dataset by a radiation oncologist blinded to the registration methods. The absolute difference of various dosimetric parameters were then analysed and compared with the original planning doses. A comparison of the three matching methods employed was also carried out.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference in the magnitude of move taken in the inferior superior direction between M1 and M2 method. There were no significant differences observed in any of the dosimetric parameters examined in relation to the rectum, bladder or CTV. The only significant difference observed was the volume of PTV covered by the prescription isodose (95%) which was statistically significant lower in method A compared with both M1 and M2. There was no difference observed between M1 and M2 methods. The mean duration of the automated registration and subsequent analysis was 64 seconds compared with 91 seconds for automated registrations which included the additional manual adjustment.

Findings

CBCT-based manual adjustments of automated bony-based registrations during the image-guided radiotherapy verification of prostate cancer patients can improve PTV coverage without impacting negatively on the doses received by the organs at risk. This strategy is associated with a small increase in overall treatment time.

Keywords

cone beam computed tomographyimage-guided radiotherapyimage registrationprostate cancer
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 29 - 36
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Horwich, A, Parker, C, Kataja, V. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (suppl 4): 76–78.Google Scholar
2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer V2 2017. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf Accessed on 29th July 2017.Google Scholar
3. Kupelian, P A, Lee, C, Langen, K M et al. Evaluation of image-guidance strategies in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70 (4): 1151–1157.Google Scholar
4. Palombarini, M, Mengoli, S, Fantazzini, P, Cadioli, C, Degli Esposti, C, Frezza, G P. Analysis of inter-fraction setup errors and organ motion by daily kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7 (1): 56.Google Scholar
5. Kawamorita, R, Okada, W, Nakahara, R et al. Comparison of PTV margins calculated by various IGRT methods for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103: S565–S566.Google Scholar
6. Schreibmann, E, Fox, T, Crocker, I. Dosimetric effects of manual cone-beam CT (CBCT) matching for spinal radiosurgery: our experience. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12 (3): 132–141.Google Scholar
7. Van den Heuvel, F, Fugazzi, J, Seppi, E, Forman, J D. Clinical application of a repositioning scheme, using gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79 (1): 94–100.Google Scholar
8. Sorcini, B, Tilikidis, A. Clinical application of image-guided radiotherapy, IGRT (on the Varian OBI platform). Cancer Radiothér 2006; 10 (5): 252–257.Google Scholar
9. Jaffray, D A, Siewerdsen, J H, Wong, J W, Martinez, A A. Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2002; 53 (5): 1337–1349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Pouliot, J, Bani-Hashemi, A, Chen, J et al. Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT for radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2005; 61 (2): 552–560.Google Scholar
11. Gill, S, Li, J, Thomas, J et al. Patient-reported complications from fiducial marker implantation for prostate image-guided radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2012; 85 (1015): 1011–1017.Google Scholar
12. Delouya, G, Carrier, J-F, Béliveau-Nadeau, D, Donath, D, Taussky, D. Migration of intraprostatic fiducial markers and its influence on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96 (1): 43–47.Google Scholar
13. Nakamura, K, Akimoto, T, Mizowaki, T et al. Patterns of practice in intensity-modulated radiation therapy and image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012; 42 (1): 53–57.Google Scholar
14. Korreman, S, Rasch, C, McNair, H et al. The European Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology-European Institute of Radiotherapy (ESTRO-EIR) report on 3D CT-based in-room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94 (2): 129–144.Google Scholar
15. Rasch, C, Barillot, I, Remeijer, P, Touw, A, Van Herk, M, Lebesque, JV. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol 1999; 43 (1): 57–66.Google Scholar
16. Wang, W, Wu, Q, Yan, D. Quantitative evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography in target volume definition for offline image-guided radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94 (1): 71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Choi, H J, Kim, Y S, Lee, S H et al. Inter- and intra-observer variability in contouring of the prostate gland on planning computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. Acta Oncol 2011; 50 (4): 539–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Enmark, M, Korremani, S, Nystorm, H. IGRT of prostate cancer; is the margin reduction gained from daily IG time-dependent? Acta Oncologica 2006; 45: 907–914.Google Scholar