Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Evaluation of Prostate Volume Changes During Radiotherapy Using Implanted Markers and On-Board Imaging

no image available
B Ispir

B Ispir 1, G Ugurluer 2, Y Akdeniz 1 , A Eken 2, T Arpaci 2, M Serin 2, (1) Acibadem Adana Hospital, Adana, (2) Acibadem Universty Faculty of Medicine, Adana


SU-E-J-79 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: To evaluate prostate volume changes during radiation therapy using implanted gold markers and on-board imaging.

Methods: Twenty-five patients were included who underwent an implantation of three gold markers. Cartesian coordinates of markers were assessed in kV-images. The coordinates of centers of two markers were measured on kV-images from the center of the marker at the apex which was reference. The distances between the markers were extrapolated from the coordinates using the Euclid formula. The radius of the sphere through markers was calculated using sinus theorem. The prostate volume for the first and last fraction was substituted with a sphere model and was calculated for each patient. The t-test was used for analysis.

Results: The mean prostate volume for first and last fraction was 24.65 and 20.87 cc, respectively (p≤0.05). The prostate volume was smaller for 23 patients, whereas there was an expansion for 2 patients. Fifteen patients had androgen deprivation during radiotherapy (H group) and ten did not (NH group). The mean prostate volume for the first and last fraction for the NH group was 30.73 cc and 24.89 cc and for the H group 20.84 cc and 18.19 cc, respectively. There was a 15.8% volume change during treatment for the NH group and 12.2% for the H group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The radius difference of the theoretical sphere for the first and last fraction was 0.98 mm (range, 0.09-2.95 mm) and remained below 2 mm in 88% of measurements.

Conclusion: There was a significant volume change during prostate radiotherapy. The difference between H group and NH group was not significant. The radius changes did not exceed 3 mm and it was below adaptive treatment requirements. Our results indicate that prostate volume changes during treatment should be taken into account during contouring and treatment planning.

Contact Email: