Searching for an appropriate image-guided radiotherapy method in prostate cancer - implications for safety margin - Abstract

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.

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.

Written by:
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.
doi: 10.1700/1660.18168


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25343546

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe