A comparison of daily megavoltage CT and ultrasound image guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Med Phys 2008 Dec;35(12):5619-28
Date
01/30/2009Pubmed ID
19175119DOI
10.1118/1.3013550Scopus ID
2-s2.0-56749165429 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 25 CitationsAbstract
In order to quantify the differences between ultrasound-imaging and megavoltage-CT (MVCT) daily prostate localization in prostate-cancer radiotherapy and their dosimetric impacts, daily shifts were analyzed for a total of 140 prostate cancer patients; 106 positioned using ultrasound-based imaging [B-mode Acquisition and Targeting (BAT)], and 34 using the MVCT from a TomoTherapy Hi-Art unit. The shifts indicated by the two systems were compared statistically along the right/left (R/L), superior/inferior (S/I), and anterior/posterior (A/P) directions. The systematic and random variations among the daily alignments were calculated. Margins to account for these shifts were estimated. The mean shifts and standard deviations along the R/L, S/I, and A/P directions were -0.11 +/- 3.80, 0.67 +/- 4.67, and 2.71+/- 6.31 mm for BAT localizations and -0.98 +/- 5.13, 0.27 +/- 3.35, and 1.00 +/- 4.22 mm for MVCT localizations, respectively. The systematic and random variations in daily shifts based on MVCT were generally smaller than those based on BAT, especially along the A/P direction. A t-test showed this difference to be statistically significant. The planning target volume margins in the A/P direction estimated to account for daily variations were 8.81 and 14.66 mm based on MVCT and BAT data, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the daily prostate movement pattern between the first few fractions and the remaining fractions. Dosimetric comparison of MVCT and BAT prostate alignments was performed for seven fractions from a patient. The degradation from the plan caused by the MVCT alignment is trivial, while that by BAT is substantial. The MVCT technique results in smaller variations in daily shifts than ultrasound imaging, indicating that MVCT is more reliable and precise for prostate localization. Ultrasound-based localization may overestimate the daily prostate motion, particularly in the A/P direction, negatively impacting prostate dose coverage and rectal sparing.
Author List
Peng C, Kainz K, Lawton C, Li XAAuthor
Kristofer Kainz PhD Associate Professor in the Radiation Oncology department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
Computer SimulationHumans
Male
Models, Statistical
Motion
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiation Oncology
Radiometry
Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Reproducibility of Results
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Ultrasonography
