Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Does Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy Mean Zero Margin for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer? An Intra-Fractional Seminal Vesicles Motion Analysis

Y Sheng

Y Sheng*, T Li , W Lee , F Yin , Q Wu , Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC


TU-AB-303-6 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015) 7:30 AM - 9:30 AM Room: 303

Purpose: To provide benchmark for seminal vesicles (SVs) margin selection to account for intra-fractional motion; and to investigate the effectiveness of two motion surrogates in predicting intra-fractional SV underdosage.

Methods: 9 prostate SBRT patients were studied; each has five pairs of pre-treatment and post-treatment cone-beam CTs (CBCTs). Each pair of CBCTs was registered based on fiducial markers in the prostate. To provide “ground truth” for coverage evaluation, all pre-treatment SVs were expanded with isotropic margin of 1,2,3,5 and 8mm, and their overlap with post-treatment SVs were used to quantify intra-fractional coverage. Two commonly used motion surrogates, the center-of-mass (COM) and the border of contour (the most distal points in SI/AP/LR directions) were evaluated using Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses for predicting SV underdosage due to intra-fractional motion. Action threshold of determining underdosage for each surrogate was calculated by selecting the optimal balancing between sensitivity and specificity. For comparison, margin for each surrogate was also calculated based on traditional margin recipe.

Results: 90% post-treatment SV coverage can be achieved in 47%, 82%, 91%, 98% and 98% fractions for 1,2,3,5 and 8mm margins. 3mm margin ensured the 90% intra-fractional SV coverage in 90% fractions when prostate was aligned.
The ROC analysis indicated the AUC for COM and border were 0.88 and 0.72. The underdosage threshold was 2.9mm for COM and 4.1mm for border. The Van Herk’s margin recipe recommended 0.5, 0 and 1.8mm margin in LR, AP and SI direction based on COM and for border, the corresponding margin was 2.1, 4.5 and 3mm.

Conclusion: 3mm isotropic margin is the minimum required to mitigate the intra-fractional SV motion when prostate is aligned. ROC analysis reveals that both COM and border are acceptable predictors for SV underdosage with 2.9mm and 4.1mm action threshold. Traditional margin calculation is less reliable for this application.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: This work is partially supported a master research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

Contact Email: