TY - JOUR
T1 - Position verification for the prostate: effect on rectal wall dose.
AU - Van Herk, Marcel
AU - Haverkort, Marie A D
AU - van de Kamer, Jeroen B
AU - Pieters, Bradley R
AU - van Tienhoven, Geertjan
AU - Assendelft, Esther
AU - Lensing, Andrea L
AU - van Herk, Marcel
AU - de Reijke, Theo M
AU - Stoker, Jaap
AU - Koning, Caro C E
PY - 2011/6/1
Y1 - 2011/6/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of gold marker (GM)-based position correction on the cumulative dose in the anorectal wall compared with traditional bony anatomy (BA)-based correction, taking into account changes in anorectal shape and position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 20 consecutive prostate cancer patients, treated with curative external beam radiotherapy, were included. Four fiducial GMs were implanted in the prostate. Positioning was verified according to the shift in BA and GMs on daily electronic portal images. Position corrections were determined using on- and off-line position verification protocols according to the position of the GMs (GM-on and GM-off) and BA (BA-off). For all patients, intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were made for the GM (8-mm planning target volume margin) and BA (10-mm planning target volume margin) protocols. The dose distribution was recomputed on 11 repeat computed tomography scans to estimate the accumulated dose to the prostate and anorectal wall while considering internal organ motion. RESULTS: The dose that is at least received by 99% of the prostate was, on average, acceptable for all protocols. The individual patient data showed the best coverage for both GM protocols, with >95% of the prescribed dose for all patients. The anorectal wall dose was significantly lower for the GM protocols. The dose that is at least received by 30% of the rectal wall was, on average, 54.6 Gy for GM-on, 54.1 Gy for GM-off, and 58.9 Gy for BA-off (p
AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of gold marker (GM)-based position correction on the cumulative dose in the anorectal wall compared with traditional bony anatomy (BA)-based correction, taking into account changes in anorectal shape and position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 20 consecutive prostate cancer patients, treated with curative external beam radiotherapy, were included. Four fiducial GMs were implanted in the prostate. Positioning was verified according to the shift in BA and GMs on daily electronic portal images. Position corrections were determined using on- and off-line position verification protocols according to the position of the GMs (GM-on and GM-off) and BA (BA-off). For all patients, intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were made for the GM (8-mm planning target volume margin) and BA (10-mm planning target volume margin) protocols. The dose distribution was recomputed on 11 repeat computed tomography scans to estimate the accumulated dose to the prostate and anorectal wall while considering internal organ motion. RESULTS: The dose that is at least received by 99% of the prostate was, on average, acceptable for all protocols. The individual patient data showed the best coverage for both GM protocols, with >95% of the prescribed dose for all patients. The anorectal wall dose was significantly lower for the GM protocols. The dose that is at least received by 30% of the rectal wall was, on average, 54.6 Gy for GM-on, 54.1 Gy for GM-off, and 58.9 Gy for BA-off (p
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.02.016
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.02.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 20646865
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 80
JO - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
JF - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
IS - 2
ER -
