Comparison of prostate verification with implanted gold markers in tissue surrounding the prostate and pelvic bony anatomy for external beam radiation therapy following low-dose-rate brachytherapy: a prospective clinical trial

We aimed to investigate whether gold marker implantation in the tissue surrounding the prostate could accurately monitor setup errors during external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy. Thirty-eight patients had confirmed intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer and received EBRT following LDR brachytherapy. In >175 computed tomography imaging sessions, the average values of the weekly setup error during EBRT to the prostate centroid at the time of gold marker matching in the surrounding tissue of the prostate and pelvic bone matching were measured and then compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Gold marker matching in the surrounding tissue of the prostate estimated setup errors better than those estimated by bone matching (3D displacement = 2.7 ± 2.0 vs 3.8 ± 2.6 mm, P < 0.01). Overall, the standard deviation of systematic (Σ) and random (σ) setup error was lower with gold marker matching than with bone matching (3D displacement = 1.8 and 1.1 mm vs 2.1 and 1.6 mm, respectively). With gold marker matching, the setup error of the position of the prostate centroid was smaller, and the optimal setup margin was lower than that with bone matching (2Σ + 0.7σ and 2.5Σ + 0.7σ of 3D displacement = 4.3 and 5.2 mm vs 5.3 and 6.4 mm, respectively). This high-precision radiotherapy approach placing gold markers in the surrounding tissue of the prostate can allow more accurate setup during EBRT following LDR brachytherapy.

Fiducial markers visibility and artefacts in prostate cancer radiotherapy multi-modality imaging

Background In this study, a novel pelvic phantom was developed and used to assess the visibility and presence of artefacts from different types of commercial fiducial markers (FMs) on multi-modality imaging relevant to prostate cancer. Methods and materials The phantom was designed with 3D printed hollow cubes in the centre. These cubes were filled with gel to mimic the prostate gland and two parallel PVC rods were used to mimic bones in the pelvic region. Each cube was filled with gelatine and three unique FMs were positioned with a clinically-relevant spatial distribution. The FMs investigated were; Gold Marker (GM) CIVCO, GM RiverPoint, GM Gold Anchor (GA) line and ball shape, and polymer marker (PM) from CIVCO. The phantom was scanned using several imaging modalities typically used to image prostate cancer patients; MRI, CT, CBCT, planar kV-pair, ExacTrac, 6MV, 2.5MV and integrated EPID imaging. The visibility of the markers and any observed artefacts in the phantom were compared to in-vivo scans of prostate cancer patients with FMs. Results All GMs were visible in volumetric scans, however, they also had the most visible artefacts on CT and CBCT scans, with the magnitude of artefacts increasing with FM size. PM FMs had the least visible artefacts in volumetric scans but they were not visible on portal images and had poor visibility on lateral kV images. The smallest diameter GMs (GA) were the most difficult GMs to identify on lateral kV images. Conclusion The choice between different FMs is also dependent on the adopted IGRT strategy. PM was found to be superior to investigated gold markers in the most commonly used modalities in the management of prostate cancer; CT, CBCT and MRI imaging.