Cargando…

Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions

Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences allow physicians to define the dominant intraprostatic lesion (IPL) in prostate radiation therapy treatments allowing for dose escalation and potentially increased tumor control. This work quantifies the margin required around the MRI‐defined IP...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Studenski, Matthew T., Valenciaga, Yanisley, Abramowitz, Matthew C., Stoyanova, Radka, Bossart, Elizabeth, Dogan, Nesrin, Pollack, Alan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6089
_version_ 1783279696600891392
author Studenski, Matthew T.
Valenciaga, Yanisley
Abramowitz, Matthew C.
Stoyanova, Radka
Bossart, Elizabeth
Dogan, Nesrin
Pollack, Alan
author_facet Studenski, Matthew T.
Valenciaga, Yanisley
Abramowitz, Matthew C.
Stoyanova, Radka
Bossart, Elizabeth
Dogan, Nesrin
Pollack, Alan
author_sort Studenski, Matthew T.
collection PubMed
description Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences allow physicians to define the dominant intraprostatic lesion (IPL) in prostate radiation therapy treatments allowing for dose escalation and potentially increased tumor control. This work quantifies the margin required around the MRI‐defined IPL accounting for both prostate motion and deformation. Ten patients treated with a simultaneous integrated intraprostatic boost (SIIB) were retrospectively selected and replanned with incremental 1 mm margins from 0‐5 mm around the IPL to determine if there were any significant differences in dosimetric parameters. Sensitivity analysis was then performed accounting for random and systematic uncertainties in both prostate motion and deformation to ensure adequate dose was delivered to the IPL. Prostate deformation was assessed using daily CBCT imaging and implanted fiducial markers. The average IPL volume without margin was 2.3% of the PTV volume and increased to 11.8% with a 5 mm margin. Despite these changes in volume, the only statistically significant dosimetric difference was found for the PTV maximum dose, which increased with increasing margin. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that a 3.0 mm margin ensures [Formula: see text] IPL coverage accounting for both motion and deformation. We found that a margin of 3.0 mm around the MRI defined IPL is sufficient to account for random and systematic errors in IPL position for the majority of cases. PACS number(s): 87.55.de
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690932
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56909322018-04-02 Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions Studenski, Matthew T. Valenciaga, Yanisley Abramowitz, Matthew C. Stoyanova, Radka Bossart, Elizabeth Dogan, Nesrin Pollack, Alan J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences allow physicians to define the dominant intraprostatic lesion (IPL) in prostate radiation therapy treatments allowing for dose escalation and potentially increased tumor control. This work quantifies the margin required around the MRI‐defined IPL accounting for both prostate motion and deformation. Ten patients treated with a simultaneous integrated intraprostatic boost (SIIB) were retrospectively selected and replanned with incremental 1 mm margins from 0‐5 mm around the IPL to determine if there were any significant differences in dosimetric parameters. Sensitivity analysis was then performed accounting for random and systematic uncertainties in both prostate motion and deformation to ensure adequate dose was delivered to the IPL. Prostate deformation was assessed using daily CBCT imaging and implanted fiducial markers. The average IPL volume without margin was 2.3% of the PTV volume and increased to 11.8% with a 5 mm margin. Despite these changes in volume, the only statistically significant dosimetric difference was found for the PTV maximum dose, which increased with increasing margin. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that a 3.0 mm margin ensures [Formula: see text] IPL coverage accounting for both motion and deformation. We found that a margin of 3.0 mm around the MRI defined IPL is sufficient to account for random and systematic errors in IPL position for the majority of cases. PACS number(s): 87.55.de John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690932/ /pubmed/27167286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6089 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Studenski, Matthew T.
Valenciaga, Yanisley
Abramowitz, Matthew C.
Stoyanova, Radka
Bossart, Elizabeth
Dogan, Nesrin
Pollack, Alan
Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title_full Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title_fullStr Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title_short Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
title_sort quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6089
work_keys_str_mv AT studenskimatthewt quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT valenciagayanisley quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT abramowitzmatthewc quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT stoyanovaradka quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT bossartelizabeth quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT dogannesrin quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions
AT pollackalan quantificationofthemarginrequiredfortreatingintraprostaticlesions