» Articles » PMID: 24140847

An Assessment of PTV Margin Based on Actual Accumulated Dose for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Overview
Journal Phys Med Biol
Publisher IOP Publishing
Date 2013 Oct 22
PMID 24140847
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this work is to present the results of a margin reduction study involving dosimetric and radiobiologic assessment of cumulative dose distributions, computed using an image guided adaptive radiotherapy based framework. Eight prostate cancer patients, treated with 7-9, 6 MV, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields, were included in this study. The workflow consists of cone beam CT (CBCT) based localization, deformable image registration of the CBCT to simulation CT image datasets (SIM-CT), dose reconstruction and dose accumulation on the SIM-CT, and plan evaluation using radiobiological models. For each patient, three IMRT plans were generated with different margins applied to the CTV. The PTV margin for the original plan was 10 mm and 6 mm at the prostate/anterior rectal wall interface (10/6 mm) and was reduced to: (a) 5/3 mm, and (b) 3 mm uniformly. The average percent reductions in predicted tumor control probability (TCP) in the accumulated (actual) plans in comparison to the original plans over eight patients were 0.4%, 0.7% and 11.0% with 10/6 mm, 5/3 mm and 3 mm uniform margin respectively. The mean increase in predicted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for grades 2/3 rectal bleeding for the actual plans in comparison to the static plans with margins of 10/6, 5/3 and 3 mm uniformly was 3.5%, 2.8% and 2.4% respectively. For the actual dose distributions, predicted NTCP for late rectal bleeding was reduced by 3.6% on average when the margin was reduced from 10/6 mm to 5/3 mm, and further reduced by 1.0% on average when the margin was reduced to 3 mm. The average reduction in complication free tumor control probability (P+) in the actual plans in comparison to the original plans with margins of 10/6, 5/3 and 3 mm was 3.7%, 2.4% and 13.6% correspondingly. The significant reduction of TCP and P+ in the actual plan with 3 mm margin came from one outlier, where individualizing patient treatment plans through margin adaptation based on biological models, might yield higher quality treatments.

Citing Articles

Radiation therapy margin reduction for patients with localized prostate cancer: A prospective study of the dosimetric impact and quality of life.

Kumarasiri A, Chetty I, Devpura S, Pradhan D, Aref I, Elshaikh M J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023; 25(3):e14198.

PMID: 37952248 PMC: 10930006. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14198.


Quantifying 6D tumor motion and calculating PTV margins during liver stereotactic radiotherapy with fiducial tracking.

Sun X, Dai Z, Xu M, Guo X, Su H, Li Y Front Oncol. 2022; 12:1021119.

PMID: 36465406 PMC: 9709257. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1021119.


Dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive strategy in IMPT for high-risk prostate cancer.

Tamura H, Kobashi K, Nishioka K, Yoshimura T, Hashimoto T, Shimizu S J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(4):e13531.

PMID: 35045211 PMC: 8992948. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13531.


Spatial and dosimetric evaluation of residual distortions of prostate and seminal vesicle bed after image-guided definitive and postoperative radiotherapy of prostate cancer with endorectal balloon.

Levegrun S, Pottgen C, Xydis K, Guberina M, Jawad J, Stuschke M J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020; 22(1):226-241.

PMID: 33377614 PMC: 7856505. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13138.


Study of Asymmetric Margins in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Using Fuzzy Logic.

Patnaikuni S, Saini S, Chandola R, Chandrakar P, Chaudhary V J Med Phys. 2020; 45(2):88-97.

PMID: 32831491 PMC: 7416865. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_110_19.


References
1.
Rancati T, Fiorino C, Gagliardi G, Cattaneo G, Sanguineti G, Casanova Borca V . Fitting late rectal bleeding data using different NTCP models: results from an Italian multi-centric study (AIROPROS0101). Radiother Oncol. 2004; 73(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.08.013. View

2.
Zhong H, Peters T, Siebers J . FEM-based evaluation of deformable image registration for radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52(16):4721-38. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/16/001. View

3.
Amer A, Mott J, Mackay R, Williams P, Livsey J, Logue J . Prediction of the benefits from dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56(1):199-207. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00086-5. View

4.
Sheets N, Goldin G, Meyer A, Wu Y, Chang Y, Sturmer T . Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, or conformal radiation therapy and morbidity and disease control in localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2012; 307(15):1611-20. PMC: 3702170. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.460. View

5.
Huang S, Catton C, Jezioranski J, Bayley A, Rose S, Rosewall T . The effect of changing technique, dose, and PTV margin on therapeutic ratio during prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71(4):1057-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.055. View