Intrafraction Prostate Translations and Rotations During Hypofractionated Robotic Radiation Surgery: Dosimetric Impact of Correction Strategies and Margins
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and the effect of robot correction strategies for hypofractionated CyberKnife treatments with a simultaneously integrated boost.
Methods And Materials: A total of 548 real-time prostate motion tracks from 17 patients were available for dosimetric simulations of CyberKnife treatments, in which various correction strategies were included. Fixed time intervals between imaging/correction (15, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) were simulated, as well as adaptive timing (ie, the time interval reduced from 60 to 15 seconds in case prostate motion exceeded 3 mm or 2° in consecutive images). The simulated extent of robot corrections was also varied: no corrections, translational corrections only, and translational corrections combined with rotational corrections up to 5°, 10°, and perfect rotational correction. The correction strategies were evaluated for treatment plans with a 0-mm or 3-mm margin around the clinical target volume (CTV). We recorded CTV coverage (V100%) and dose-volume parameters of the peripheral zone (boost), rectum, bladder, and urethra.
Results: Planned dose parameters were increasingly preserved with larger extents of robot corrections. A time interval between corrections of 60 to 180 seconds provided optimal preservation of CTV coverage. To achieve 98% CTV coverage in 98% of the treatments, translational and rotational corrections up to 10° were required for the 0-mm margin plans, whereas translational and rotational corrections up to 5° were required for the 3-mm margin plans. Rectum and bladder were spared considerably better in the 0-mm margin plans. Adaptive timing did not improve delivered dose.
Conclusions: Intrafraction prostate motion substantially affected the delivered dose but was compensated for effectively by robot corrections using a time interval of 60 to 180 seconds. A 0-mm margin required larger extents of additional rotational corrections than a 3-mm margin but resulted in lower doses to rectum and bladder.
Kwakernaak R, Brand V, Rojo-Santiago J, Froklage F, Hoogeman M, Habraken S Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2025; 33:100714.
PMID: 39981525 PMC: 11840216. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2025.100714.
Brand V, Milder M, Christianen M, de Vries K, Hoogeman M, Incrocci L Adv Radiat Oncol. 2025; 10(2):101701.
PMID: 39866592 PMC: 11758839. DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101701.
Target Volume Optimization for Localized Prostate Cancer.
Patel K, van der Heide U, Kerkmeijer L, Schoots I, Turkbey B, Citrin D Pract Radiat Oncol. 2024; 14(6):522-540.
PMID: 39019208 PMC: 11531394. DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.006.
Winter J, Reddy V, Li W, Craig T, Raman S Br J Radiol. 2024; 97(1153):31-40.
PMID: 38263844 PMC: 11027310. DOI: 10.1093/bjr/tqad041.
Panizza D, Faccenda V, Arcangeli S, De Ponti E Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(1).
PMID: 38201441 PMC: 10778084. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010013.