IJMPCERO  Vol.1 No.2 , August 2012
Planning Margins to CTV for Image-Guided Whole Pelvis Prostate Cancer Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
ABSTRACT
Purpose: We investigated the margin recipes with different alignment techniques in the image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of whole pelvis prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight computed tomography (CT) scans of eight prostate cancer patients were investigated. Each patient had an initial planning CT scan and 5 consecutive serial CT scans during the course of treatment, all of which were acquired using 3 mm slice separation and 0.94 mm resolution in the axial plane at 120 kVp, on a PQ 5000 CT scanner. Three different whole pelvis planning margin recipes, ranging from 3 to 13 mm, were investigated. A unique IMRT plan was created with each PTV on the initial CT scan, and was then registered to the 5 serial CT scans, by bony alignment or by prostate gland-based alignment. The dose computed on each serial CT scans was accumulated back to the initial CT scan using deformable image registration for final dosimetric evaluation of the interplay of the margin selection and alignment methods. Results: Bony alignment and prostate gland-based alignment gave very similar result to the pelvic lymphatic nodes (PLNs), regardless of its margin around. The prostate gland-based alignment greatly enhanced the coverage to the prostate and SV, especially with small margins. Meanwhile, the soft-tissue alignment also raised the incidental dose to the rectum and reduces the dose to the bladder. With small to intermediate margins, only soft-tissue alignment gave acceptable mean coverage to SV. Margin of 13mm or more was needed for PLNs to maintain good target coverage. Conclusion: We commend prostate-based alignment along with margins less than or equal to 5mm around prostate and SV, and margins greater than or equal to 13 mm around the vascular spaces.

Cite this paper
Z. Wang, K. Wang, F. Lerma, B. Liu, P. Amin, B. Yi, G. Hobeika and C. Yu, "Planning Margins to CTV for Image-Guided Whole Pelvis Prostate Cancer Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy," International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 1 No. 2, 2012, pp. 23-31. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2012.12004.
References
[1]   Bagshaw MA, Pistenma DA, Ray GR, et al. Evaluation of extended-field radiotherapy for prostatic neoplasm: 1976 progress report. Cancer Treat Rep 1977; 61:297–306.

[2]   Asbell SO, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al. Elective pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate: Analysis of RTOG 77-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988; 15:1307–1316.

[3]   Roach M 3rd, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, Uhl V, Machtay M, Seider MJ, Rotman M, Jones C, Asbell SO, Valicenti RK, Han S, Thomas CR Jr, Shipley WS. Phase III trial com-paring whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1904-1911.

[4]   Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:5366–5373.

[5]   Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M III, et al. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: Updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:646–655.

[6]   Aizer AA, Yu JB, McKeon AM, Decker RH, Colberg JW, Peschel RE. Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy Versus Prostate Only Radiotherapy in THE Management of Locally Advanced or Aggressive Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 (in press).

[7]   Chung HT, Xia P, Chan LW, Park-Somers E, Roach M III. Dose image-guided radiotherapy improve toxicity profile in whole pelvictreated high-risk prostate cancer? Comparison between IG-IMRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;73:53-60.

[8]   Pollack A, Alexandra LH, Horwitz EM, Feigenberg SJ, Konski AA, Movsas B, Greenberg RE, Uzzo RG, Ma C-MC, McNeeley SW, Buyyounouski Mk, Price RA Jr. Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypo-fractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:518-526.

[9]   Hsu A, Pawlicki T, Luxton G, hara W, King CR. A study of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with fiducials for localized prostate cancer including pelvic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:898-902.

[10]   Muren LP, Wasb? E, Helle SI, Hysing LB, Karlsdottir A, Odland OH, Valen H, Ekerold R, Johannessen DC. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of pelvic lymph nodes in locally advanced prostate cancer: planning procedures and early experiences. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:1034-1041.

[11]   Sanguineti G, Endres EJ, Parker BC, Bicquart C, Little M, Chen G, Berilgen J. Acute toxicity of whole-pelvis IMRT in 87 patients with localized prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2008;47:301-10.

[12]   Ashman JB, Zelefsky MJ, Hunt MS, Leibel SA, Fuks Z. Whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer using 3D conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63:765-71.

[13]   Chan LW, Xia P, Gottschalk AR, Akazawa M, Scala M, Pickett B, Hsu I-C, Speight J, Roach M III. Proposed rectal dose constraints for patients undergoing definitive whole pelvic radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:69-77.

[14]   Schulze D, Liang J, Yan D, Zhang T. Comparison of various online IGRT strategies: The benefits of online treatment plan re-optimization. Radiother Oncol 2008; 90:367-76.

[15]   Liu B, Lerma FA, Patel S, Amin P, Feng Y, Yi BY, Yu C. Dosimetric effects of the prone and supine positions on image guided localized prostate cancer radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008; 88:67-76.

[16]   Q. Zhang, M. Chan, Y. Song and Burman, “Three Di-mensional Expansion of Margins for Single-Fraction Treatments: Stereotactic Radiosurgery Brain Cases,” In-ternational Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engi-neering and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012, pp. 15-22.

[17]   Crevoisier RD, Melancon AD, Kuban DA, Lee AK, Cheung RM, Tucker SL, Kudchadker RJ, Newhauser WD, Zhang L, Mohan R, Dong L. Changes in the pelvic anatomy after an IMRT treatment fraction of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68:1529-1536.

[18]   Bylund KC, Bayouth JE, Smith MC, Hass AC, Bhatia SK, Buatti JM. Analysis of interfraction prostate motion using megavoltage cone beam computed tomography. Int J Ra-diat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72:949-956.

[19]   Antolak JA, Rosen II, Childress CH, Zagars GK, Pollack A. Prostate target volume variations during a course of radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42:661-672.

[20]   Sripadam R, Stratford J, Henry AM, Jackson A, Moore CJ, Price P. Rectal motion can reduce CTV coverage and increase rectal dose during prostate radiotherapy: A daily cone-beam CT study. Radiother Oncol 2009; 90:312-317.

[21]   Lerma FA, Liu B, Wang Z, Yi B, Amin P, Liu S, Feng Y, Yu CX. Role of Image guided patient repositioning and online planning in localized prostate cancer radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009 (accepted).

[22]   Alexander T, Andrea GR, Rodney HR, Melanie EBP. Mapping pelvic lymph nodes: guidelines for delineation in internsity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005 63:1604-1612.

[23]   Kaus MR, Brock KK, Pekar V, Dawson LA, Nichol AM, Jaffray DA. Assessment of a model-based deformable image registration approach for radiation therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68:572-80.

[24]   Rice JA, Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Duxbury, Belmont, 1995.

 
 
Top