Electronic portal imaging device detection of radioopaque markers for the evaluation of prostate position during megavoltage irradiation: A clinical study

Abstract

Purpose : This study was designed to assess daily prostatic apex motion relative to pelvic bone structures during megavoltage irradiation. Methods and Materials : Radioopaque markers were implanted under ultrasound guidance near the prostatic apex of 11 patients with localized prostatic carcinoma. Patients were subsequently treated with a four field-box technique at a beam energy of 23 MV. During treatment, on-line images were obtained with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The marker was easily identified, even on unprocessed images, and the distance between the marker and a bony landmark was measured. Timelapse movies were also reviewed. After the completion of treatment, a transrectal ultrasound examination was performed in 8 of 11 patients, to verify the position of the marker. Results : We acquired over 900 digital portal images and analyzed posterioanterior and right lateral views. The quality of protal images obtained with megavoltage irradiation was good. It was possible to evaluate pelvic bone structures even without image histogram equalization. Moreover, the radioopaque marker was easily visible on every online portal image. The review of timelapse movies showed important interfraction motion of the marker while bone structures remained stable. We measured the position of the marker for each fraction. marker displacements up to 1.6 cm were measured between 2 consecutive days of treatment. Important marker motions were predominantly in the posteroanterior and cephalocaudal directions. In eight patients, we verified the position of the marker relative to the prostatic apex with ultrasound at the end of the treatments. The marker remained in the trapezoid zone. Intratreatment images reviewed in two cases showed no change in marker position. Our results, obtained during the treatment courses, indicate similar or larger prostate motions than previously observed in studies that used intertreatment x-ray films and CT images. Marker implantation under transrectal ultrasound was well tolerated. Conclusion : Radioopaque marker and the use of electronic portal imaging give a direct evaluation of prostatic motion during radiation treatment. As suggested in previous studies the motions observed are predominantly in the posteroanterior and cephalocaudal directions. Therefore, prostate motion during treatment is important and must be considered especially when using conformal therapy.