4.7 Article

REAL-TIME STUDY OF PROSTATE INTRAFRACTION MOTION DURING EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY WITH DAILY ENDORECTAL BALLOON

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.052

Keywords

Prostate; Calypso; Endorectal balloon; Intrafraction motion; External beam radiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To prospectively investigate intrafraction prostate motion during radiofrequency-guided prostate radiotherapy with implanted electromagnetic transponders when daily endorectal balloon (ERB) is used. Methods and Materials: Intrafraction prostate motion from 24 patients in 787 treatment sessions was evaluated based on three-dimensional (3D), lateral, cranial-caudal (CC), and anterior-posterior (AP) displacements. The mean percentage of time with 3D, lateral, CC, and AP prostate displacements >2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. Correlation between the mean percentage time with 3D prostate displacement >3 mm vs. treatment week was investigated. Results: The percentage of time with 3D prostate movement >2,3, and 4 mm increased with elapsed treatment time (p < 0.05). Prostate movement >5 mm was independent of elapsed treatment time (p = 0.11). The overall mean time with prostate excursions >3 mm was 5%. Directional analysis showed negligible lateral prostate motion; AP and CC motion were comparable. The fraction of time with 3D prostate movement >3 mm did not depend on treatment week of (p > 0.05) over a 4-minute mean treatment time. Conclusions: Daily endorectal balloon consistently stabilizes the prostate, preventing clinically significant displacement (>5 mm). A 3-mm internal margin may sufficiently account for 95% of intrafraction prostate movement for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. Directional analysis suggests that the lateral internal margin could be further reduced to 2 mm. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available