SU-E-J-39: Dosimetric Benefit of Implanted Marker-Based CBCT Setup for Definitive Prostatic Radiotherapy

Authors


Abstract

Purpose

Daily setup for definitive prostatic radiotherapy is challenged by suboptimal visibility of the prostate boundary and daily variation of rectum shape and position. For patients with improved bowel preparation, we conducted a dosimetric comparison between prostate implanted marker (IM)-based daily setup and anterior rectal wall (ARW)-based setup, with the hypothesis that the former leads to adequate target coverage with better rectal sparing.

Methods

Five IMRT/VMAT prostate cases with implanted markers were selected for analysis. Daily CBCT showed improvement of the rectal volume compared to planning CT. For each patient, the prostate and rectum were contoured on three CBCT images (fraction 5/15/25) with subsequent physician review. The CBCTs were then registered to a planning CT using IM-based registration. The deviation of ARW positions from planning CT to CBCT were analyzed at various sup-inf levels (−1.8 cm to 1.8 cm from level of prostate center). To estimate the potential dosimetric impact from ARW-based setup, the treatment plans were recalculated using A-P shifts ranging from −1mm to +6mm. Clinically important rectum DVH values including Dmax, D3cc and Dmean were computed.

Results

For the studied patients, we observed on average 32% rectum volume reduction from planning CT to CBCT. As a Results, the ARW on average shifts posteriorly by −1mm to +5mm, depending on the sup-inf level of observation, with larger shifts observed at more superior levels. Recalculation shows that when ARW shifts 1mm posteriorly, ARW-based CBCT setup leads to a 1.0%, 4.2%, and 3.2% increase in rectum Dmax, D3cc, and Dmean, respectively, compared to IM-based setup. The dosimetric deviations increase to 4.7%, 25.8% and 24.7% when ARW shifts 6mm posteriorly. No significant prostate-only dose difference was observed.

Conclusion

For patients with improved bowel preparation, IM-based CBCT setup leads to accurate prostate coverage along with significantly lower rectal dose, compared to ARW-based setup.

Ancillary