Time-dependent margins for prostate intrafraction motion during hypofractionated radiotherapy
Francesca di Franco,
France
PO-1707
Abstract
Time-dependent margins for prostate intrafraction motion during hypofractionated radiotherapy
Authors: Francesca di Franco1, Thomas Baudier1, Frederic Gassa2, Pascal Pommier2, David Sarrut1, Marie Claude Biston1
1Léon Bérard Cancer Center & CREATIS laboratoires , Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; 2Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
To investigate two different methods for predicting minimum
non-isotropic and asymmetric (NI-AS) treatment margins required for taking into
account prostate intrafraction motion occurring during moderate
hypofractionated treatments.
Material and Methods
Prostate intrafraction 3D translations were recorded using Clarity
transperineal ultrasound probe (TP-US) (Elekta AB, Stockholm) in 46 prostate
cancer patients (876 sessions) treated by moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy
at our institution. All patients underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy.
The prescribed dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions to the Clinical-Target-Volume
(CTV) prostate. The treatment goal was that 100% of the prescribed dose must
cover 99% of the CTV-prostate. For 18 patients (346 sessions)
randomly selected from the cohort, treatment plans were recomputed increasing
CTV-to-PTV margins from 0 to 6mm with an auto-planning optimization algorithm.
Then, the voxel shifting method (VSM) was used to move the CTV-prostate
structure every five seconds of treatment, according to the movements retrieved
by the TP-US, and to calculate time-dependent margins. The obtained results
were compared to those obtained using van Herk’s margin formula.
Results
Mean intra-fraction prostate displacements observed were -0.02±0.52mm,
0.27±0.78mm and -0.43±1.06mm in left-right (LR), supero-infero (SI) and
antero-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. On average, the largest
displacements were observed in inferior and posterior directions. The CTV
dosimetric coverage increased with increasing CTV-to-PTV margins and decreased
with time. Using van Herk’s formula, after 7min of treatment, a margin of 0.4
and 0.5mm was needed in LR, 0.7 and 1.5mm in SI, 1.1 and 3.2mm in AP
directions, respectively, for considering prostate intrafraction motion. On the
other hand, margins of 0mm in LR direction, 2mm in superior direction, 3mm in
inferior and anterior directions, and 5mm in posterior direction were obtained
with the VSM. When applying the intrafraction shifts on the PTVs generated with
the VSM margins, the impact of motion on the CTV coverage was the same as using
5mm homogeneous margin. Finally, after 7min of treatment, intrafraction motion
triggered an increased in the average dose (Dmean) of 2 and 1.5Gy to
the rectum and bladder walls, respectively, with respect to the initial
treatment plan, using a 5mm CTV-to-PTV margin. Conversely, a
reduction in rectum and bladder walls Dmean of 2Gy was reported using the margins
obtained with the VSM.
Conclusion
Prostate
movements impact dose distribution and target coverage. NI-AS margins would be
required to optimally take into account intrafraction motion and spare
organs-at-risk.