2012•Medical PhysicsRequires access

Poster — Thur Eve — 28: Optimization of a prostate cancer IGRT protocol

Olga Dona, Kevin R. Diamond, Orest Z. Ostapiak, Marcin Wierzbicki

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Our image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) protocol for post-prostatectomy patients involves acquiring a kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) dataset at each fraction and shifting the treatment couch to align the surgical clips. This IGRT strategy requires significant resources, and delivers non-negligible dose to normal tissues. The objective of this work is to evaluate this IGRT protocol against two alternative strategies in terms of the dose-volume statistics for target and organ at risk regions. Our method involves deforming the planning CT to the CBCT dataset acquired at each fraction, computing dose on the deformed dataset, and inversely transforming the dose back onto the original planning CT dataset. The treatments of six patients were evaluated assuming three IGRT scenarios: no IGRT, daily IGRT using the clinically employed couch shifts, and alternating day IGRT. The doses delivered to the clinical target volumes are within approximately 3.2, 1.3, and 2.1% of the plan for the non-IGRT, daily, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Doses to relevant portions of the organs at risk deviate from the plan by up to 10.5, 13.1 and 10.7% for non-IGRT, daily IGRT, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Some cases do not differ significantly between IGRT and non-IGRT protocols in terms of cumulative DVHs, highlighting the difficult task of correcting prostate bed deformations via the treatment couch translations. In general, the alternating day IGRT protocol was found to result in a clinically insignificant deviation in delivered dose while providing a significant reduction in resource use and patient imaging dose.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Our image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) protocol for post-prostatectomy patients involves acquiring a kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) dataset at each fraction and shifting the treatment couch to align the surgical clips. This IGRT strategy requires significant resources, and delivers non-negligible dose to normal tissues. The objective of this work is to evaluate this IGRT protocol against two alternative strategies in terms of the dose-volume statistics for target and organ at risk regions. Our method involves deforming the planning CT to the CBCT dataset acquired at each fraction, computing dose on the deformed dataset, and inversely transforming the dose back onto the original planning CT dataset. The treatments of six patients were evaluated assuming three IGRT scenarios: no IGRT, daily IGRT using the clinically employed couch shifts, and alternating day IGRT. The doses delivered to the clinical target volumes are within approximately 3.2, 1.3, and 2.1% of the plan for the non-IGRT, daily, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Doses to relevant portions of the organs at risk deviate from the plan by up to 10.5, 13.1 and 10.7% for non-IGRT, daily IGRT, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Some cases do not differ significantly between IGRT and non-IGRT protocols in terms of cumulative DVHs, highlighting the difficult task of correcting prostate bed deformations via the treatment couch translations. In general, the alternating day IGRT protocol was found to result in a clinically insignificant deviation in delivered dose while providing a significant reduction in resource use and patient imaging dose.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Our image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) protocol for post-prostatectomy patients involves acquiring a kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) dataset at each fraction and shifting the treatment couch to align the surgical clips. This IGRT strategy requires significant resources, and delivers non-negligible dose to normal tissues. The objective of this work is to evaluate this IGRT protocol against two alternative strategies in terms of the dose-volume statistics for target and organ at risk regions. Our method involves deforming the planning CT to the CBCT dataset acquired at each fraction, computing dose on the deformed dataset, and inversely transforming the dose back onto the original planning CT dataset. The treatments of six patients were evaluated assuming three IGRT scenarios: no IGRT, daily IGRT using the clinically employed couch shifts, and alternating day IGRT. The doses delivered to the clinical target volumes are within approximately 3.2, 1.3, and 2.1% of the plan for the non-IGRT, daily, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Doses to relevant portions of the organs at risk deviate from the plan by up to 10.5, 13.1 and 10.7% for non-IGRT, daily IGRT, and alternating day IGRT protocols, respectively. Some cases do not differ significantly between IGRT and non-IGRT protocols in terms of cumulative DVHs, highlighting the difficult task of correcting prostate bed deformations via the treatment couch translations. In general, the alternating day IGRT protocol was found to result in a clinically insignificant deviation in delivered dose while providing a significant reduction in resource use and patient imaging dose.

Key concepts: Image-guided radiation therapy, Medicine, Radiation therapy, Cone beam computed tomography, Protocol (science), Nuclear medicine, Medical physics, Radiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Poster — Thur Eve — 28: Optimization of a prostate cancer IGRT protocol — Research Paper | ScholarLens