International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 74, Issue 4 , Pages 1134-1142, 15 July 2009

Dosimetric Effect of Prostate Motion During Helical Tomotherapy

  • Katja M. Langen, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Katja M. Langen, Ph.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, 1400 South Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806. Tel: (321) 841-7242; Fax: (407) 649-6895
  • ,
  • Weiguo Lu, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • TomoTherapy, Inc., Madison, WI
  • ,
  • Twyla R. Willoughby, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL
  • ,
  • Bhavin Chauhan, B.S.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL
  • ,
  • Sanford L. Meeks, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL
  • ,
  • Patrick A. Kupelian, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, FL
  • ,
  • Gustavo Olivera, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • TomoTherapy, Inc., Madison, WI
    • Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Received 13 June 2008; received in revised form 3 September 2008; accepted 6 September 2008. published online 23 February 2009.

Purpose

To assess the dosimetric consequence of intrafraction prostate motion on helical tomotherapy plans.

Methods and Materials

An electromagnetic tracking device was used to measure real-time prostate motion for 515 fractions (16 patients). Motion tracks were used to retrospectively recalculate dose distributions using a four-dimensional calculation engine. The minimum dose (Dmin), maximum dose (Dmax), and dose to 95% of the volume (D95%) were calculated for target volumes and compared with respective values from the treatment plan. The dosimetric effect was evaluated for each fraction. For each patient, the running cumulative effect was assessed throughout the course of treatment. Calculations were repeated assuming a time delay between initial patient setup and start of treatment.

Results

Averaged over all fractions, the mean change in target D95% was <1% (SD, 3–4%). Reductions in target D95% of up to 20% were seen in individual fractions. Changes in prostate D95% were similar in frequency and magnitude to D95% changes in the planning target volume. The cumulative effect on target D95% was approximately 1% (SD, 1%). The average cumulative effect after five fractions was 1% (SD, 1.5%).

Conclusions

In general, the dosimetric effect of observed prostate motion on target D95%was small. Infrequently severe D95% degradations were observed for individual fractions, but their effect on the cumulative dose distribution was quickly reduced with minimal fractionation.

Prostate cancer, Radiotherapy, Real-time motion, Dosimetry

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funding for this research was provided in part by TomoTherapy, Inc.

 W.L. and G.O. are employees of and have a financial interest in TomoTherapy, Inc. K.M.L. has served as a consultant to Calypso Medical Technologies.

PII: S0360-3016(08)03540-2

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.035

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 74, Issue 4 , Pages 1134-1142, 15 July 2009