PURPOSE: To compare two coverage-based planning (CP) techniques with standard fixed margin-based planning (FM), considering the dosimetric impact of interfraction deformable organ motion exclusively for high-risk prostate treatments.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: Nineteen prostate cancer patients with 8-13 prostate CT images of each patient were used to model patient-specific interfraction deformable organ changes. The model was based on the principal component analysis (PCA) method and was used to predict the patient geometries for virtual treatment course simulation. For each patient, an IMRT plan using zero margin on target structures, prostate (CTVprostate) and seminal vesicles (CTVSV), were created, then evaluated by simulating 1000 30-fraction virtual treatment courses. Each fraction was prostate centroid aligned. Patients whose D98 failed to achieve 95% coverage probability objective D98,95 ≥ 78 Gy (CTVprostate) or D98,95 ≥ 66 Gy (CTVSV) were replanned using planning techniques: (1) FM (PTVprostate = CTVprostate + 5 mm, PTVSV = CTVSV + 8 mm), (2) CPOM which optimized uniform PTV margins for CTVprostate and CTVSVto meet the coverage probability objective, and (3) CPCOP which directly optimized coverage probability objectives for all structures of interest. These plans were intercompared by computing probabilistic metrics, including 5% and 95% percentile DVHs (pDVH) and TCP/NTCP distributions.
RESULTS: All patients were replanned using FM and two CP techniques. The selected margins used in FM failed to ensure target coverage for 8/19 patients. Twelve CPOMplans and seven CPCOP plans were favored over the other plans by achieving desirable D98,95 while sparing more normal tissues.
CONCLUSIONS: Coverage-based treatment planning techniques can produce better plans than FM, while relative advantages of CPOM and CPCOP are patient-specific.
Xu H, Vile DJ, Sharma M, Gordon JJ, Siebers JV. Are you the author?
Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland 21201; Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan 48202; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908.
Reference: Med Phys. 2014 Oct;41(10):101705.