Abstract
With implanted markers, daily prostate displacements can be automatically detected with six degrees of freedom. The reported magnitudes of the rotations, however, are often greater than the typical range of a six‐degree treatment couch. The purpose of this study is to quantify geometric and dosimetric effects if the prostate rotations are not corrected (ROT_NC) and if they can be compensated with translational shifts (ROT_C). Forty‐three kilovoltage cone‐beam CTs (KV‐CBCT) with implanted markers from five patients were available for this retrospective study. On each KV‐CBCT, the prostate, bladder, and rectum were manually contoured by a physician. The prostate contours from the planning CT and CBCT were aligned manually to achieve the best overlaps. This contour registration served as the benchmark method for comparison with two marker registration methods: (a) using six degrees of freedom, but rotations were not corrected (ROT_NC); and (b) using three degrees of freedom while compensating rotations into the translational shifts (ROT_C). The center of mass distance (CMD) and overlap index (OI) were used to evaluate these two methods. The dosimetric effects were also analyzed by comparing the dose coverage of the prostate clinical target volume (CTV) in relation to the planning margins. According to our analysis, the detected rotations dominated in the left–right axis with systematic and random components of 4.6° and 4.1°, respectively. When the rotation angles were greater than 10°, the differences in CMD between the two registrations were greater than 5 mm in 85.7% of these fractions; when the rotation angles were greater than 6°, the differences of CMD were greater than 4 mm in 61.1% of these fractions. With 6 mm/4 mm posterior planning margins, the average difference between the dose to 99% (D99) of the prostate in CBCTs and the planning D99 of the prostate was −8.0±12.3% for the ROT_NC registration, and −3.6±9.0% for the ROT_C registration (p=0.01). When the planning margin decreased to 4 mm/2 mm posterior, the average difference in D99 of the prostate was −22.0±16.2% and −15.1±15.2% for the ROT_NC and ROT_C methods, respectively (p<0.05). In conclusion, prostate rotation cannot be simply dismissed, and the impact of the rotational errors depends on the distance between the isocenter and the centroid of implanted markers and the rotation angle.PACS number: 87.55
Highlights
178 Shang et al.: Prostate rotation cannot be dismissed the precision of treatment delivery
For patient positional setup errors, which are often detected by registering bony structures from the verification images with those from the planning images, most studies reported that rotational setup errors were relatively small with a standard deviation of about 1° around each axis.[3,4,5,6] Because of the small magnitude, some have suggested that the rotational errors can be ignored,(7-8) while others have suggested use of a robotic treatment couch to correct for this magnitude of rotation.[9]
The purpose of this study is to quantify geometric and dosimetric effects with and without compensation for rotations detected based on marker registration, rather than to determine accuracy of the rotations detected from the marker registration
Summary
178 Shang et al.: Prostate rotation cannot be dismissed the precision of treatment delivery. The use of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) improves treatment precision considerably by correcting daily patient setup error and internal organ motion. Rotational setup error and rotational organ motion have been reported, but often dismissed clinically. For patient positional setup errors, which are often detected by registering bony structures from the verification images with those from the planning images, most studies reported that rotational setup errors were relatively small with a standard deviation of about 1° around each axis.[3,4,5,6] Because of the small magnitude, some have suggested that the rotational errors can be ignored,(7-8) while others have suggested use of a robotic treatment couch to correct for this magnitude of rotation.[9]. Lips et al[19] reported rotational errors with systematic error of 6.3° and random error of 4.9°, ranging from -12.1° to 9.1° for a cohort of 19 patients
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
