Aims and Background: The aim of the study was to compare the safety margin width using skin marks, pelvic skeleton-based targeting and adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching.
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: A total of 434 consecutive patients were treated by image-guided radiotherapy from November 2008 to April 2012. An adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching with individualized safety margin calculation according to the Van Herk method was used in a total of 201 patients. The remaining 233 patients had their setup corrected using cone-beam computed tomography daily.
Results: Analysis of the 3,137 cone-beam computed tomography images (201 patients) revealed that the margins between the clinical target volume and planning target volume with skin marks registration should be 1.24 cm in the anteroposterior, 0.98 cm in the craniocaudal, and 1.03 cm in the laterolateral direction. Considering pelvic skeleton-based setup, values of the clinical target volume and planning target volume margins in the anteroposterior, craniocaudal and laterolateral axis were 0.79 cm, 0.41 cm, and 0.19 cm, respectively. In a group of 8,872 cone-beam computed tomography images (233 patients) using CBCT assessment, the calculated margins between clinical target volume and planning target volume with skin marks were 1.15 cm in anteroposterior, 1.06 in craniocaudal, and 1.19 in laterolateral directions. Considering the pelvic skeleton-based setup, the corresponding values were 0.74 cm, 0.51 cm, and 0.25 cm. With the adaptive technique, the margins of most patients in the anteroposterior, craniocaudal, and laterolateral axes were 6 mm, 6 mm, and 6 mm or 8 mm, 6 mm, and 6 mm, respectively.
Conclusions: The adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching or daily cone-beam computed tomography allowed us to substantially reduce the safety margins compared with skin marks targeting.
Vanasek J, Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Dusek L, Jarkovsky J, Hlavka A, Valentova E, Kolarova I. Are you the author?
Cancer Center Multiscan, Pardubice; Institute of Biostatististics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno; Faculty of Health Studies, Pardubice University, Pardubice; Faculty of Military Health Sciences, University of Defence, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Reference: Tumori. 2014 Sep-Oct;100(5):518-23.