Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer

Joseph Lattanzi, Shawn McNeely, Alexandra Hanlon, Indra Das, Timothy E. Schultheiss, Gerald E. Hanks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

103 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high- risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV1) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV1). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV2) then received 56 Gy to PTV2. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions. After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV3) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field. Results: Utilizing CT- CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 min. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm. Conclusion: In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1079-1086
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume41
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 15 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
cancer
Patient Positioning
Therapeutics
Seminal Vesicles
markers
couches
sliding
casts
margins
shift
simulation
organs
dosage
Stretchers
positioning
Morbidity
supine position
Supine Position

Keywords

  • Organ motion
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radiation therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer. / Lattanzi, Joseph; McNeely, Shawn; Hanlon, Alexandra; Das, Indra; Schultheiss, Timothy E.; Hanks, Gerald E.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 41, No. 5, 15.07.1998, p. 1079-1086.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lattanzi, Joseph ; McNeely, Shawn ; Hanlon, Alexandra ; Das, Indra ; Schultheiss, Timothy E. ; Hanks, Gerald E. / Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 1998 ; Vol. 41, No. 5. pp. 1079-1086.
@article{0f52590ce7d04f248a2d96e98577624f,
title = "Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer",
abstract = "Introduction: Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high- risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV1) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV1). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV2) then received 56 Gy to PTV2. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions. After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV3) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field. Results: Utilizing CT- CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 min. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm. Conclusion: In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.",
keywords = "Organ motion, Prostate cancer, Radiation therapy",
author = "Joseph Lattanzi and Shawn McNeely and Alexandra Hanlon and Indra Das and Schultheiss, {Timothy E.} and Hanks, {Gerald E.}",
year = "1998",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00156-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1079--1086",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer

AU - Lattanzi, Joseph

AU - McNeely, Shawn

AU - Hanlon, Alexandra

AU - Das, Indra

AU - Schultheiss, Timothy E.

AU - Hanks, Gerald E.

PY - 1998/7/15

Y1 - 1998/7/15

N2 - Introduction: Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high- risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV1) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV1). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV2) then received 56 Gy to PTV2. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions. After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV3) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field. Results: Utilizing CT- CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 min. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm. Conclusion: In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.

AB - Introduction: Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high- risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV1) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV1). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV2) then received 56 Gy to PTV2. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions. After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV3) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field. Results: Utilizing CT- CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 min. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm. Conclusion: In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.

KW - Organ motion

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Radiation therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032527644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032527644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00156-4

DO - 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00156-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 9719118

AN - SCOPUS:0032527644

VL - 41

SP - 1079

EP - 1086

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 5

ER -