Evaluation of set-up errors and estimation of set-up margin during external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)

Author(s):  
Daryoush Khoramian ◽  
Soroush Sistani ◽  
Bagher Farhood

Abstract Aim: In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. Results: The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively. Findings: The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Kelly Sun ◽  
Timothy Brand ◽  
Brent Tinnel ◽  
Madeera Kathpal ◽  
Stephanie Ninneman ◽  
...  

124 Background: Electromagnetic tracking of the prostate during radiation therapy for prostate cancer allows decreased PTV margins which may reduce dose to nearby tissues. Sandler, et al. reported a reduction in patient-reported acute morbidity with this strategy (Sandler HM, et al. Urology, 2010 May;75 (5):1004-8). We conducted a similar prospective study and compare our results with Sandler’s Assessing Impact of Margin Reduction (AIM) study and with a group treated with radiation therapy without reduced PTV margins from the Sanda, et al. PROST-QA cohort (Sanda MG, et al. NEJM, 2008 Mar 20;358 (12):1250-61). Methods: 25 patients with low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer were treated on a prospective study with definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy with 3 mm circumferential PTV margins and daily electromagnetic localization. An EPIC quality of life questionnaire was completed prior to treatment and at the last treatment. Using data from the referenced publications, we performed a two-tailed t-test to compare EPIC scores from our cohort with the AIM and PROST-QA cohorts treated with external beam radiation therapy alone. Results: Table lists mean pre- and post-treatment EPIC scores and the differences between them. Conclusions: Our patients fared similarly to the PROST-QA cohort, but had a significantly greater mean decrement in the urinary irritation and sexual domains in comparison to the AIM cohort. Clinical trial information: NCT01589939. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document