4.7 Article

Intrafraction motion of the prostate during external-beam radiation therapy: Analysis of 427 patients with implanted fiducial markers

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.03.029

Keywords

fiducial markers; prostate; position verification; intrafraction motion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To analyze the intrafraction motion of the prostate during external-beam radiation therapy of patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Between August 2001-December 2005, 427 patients with Stage T3Nx/0Mx/0 prostate carcinoma received intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment combined with position verification with fiducial gold markers. For a total of 11,426 treatment fractions (average, 27 per patient), portal images were taken of the first segment of all five beams. The irradiation time of the technique varied between 5-7 min. From these data, the location of gold markers could be established within every treatment beam under the assumption of minimal marker movement. Results: In 66% of treatment fractions, a motion outside a range of 2 mm was observed, with 28% outside a range of 3 mm. The intrafraction marker movements showed that motion directions were often reversed. However, the effect was small. Even with perfect online position-correction at the start of irradiation, intrafraction motion caused position uncertainty, but systematic errors (Sigma) were limited to < 0.6 mm, and random errors (sigma) to < 0.9 mm. This would result in a lower limit of 2 mm for margins, in the absence of any other uncertainties. Conclusions: Intrafraction motion of the prostate occurs frequently during external-beam irradiation on a time scale of 5-7 min. Margins of 2 mm account for these intrafraction motions. However, larger margins are required in practice to accommodate other uncertainties in the treatment. (c) 2007 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