Absence of prostate oedema obviates the need for delay between fiducial marker insertion and radiotherapy simulation

INTRODUCTION

Fiducial markers (FMs) are commonly inserted into the prostate for image guided radiation therapy. This study aimed to quantify prostate oedema immediately following FM insertion compared to prostate volumes measured a week later, at the time of simulation for radiation therapy.

METHODS

Thirty patients underwent a verification computed tomography (VCT) scan in treatment position immediately after the fiducial insertion and their planning computed tomography scan (PCT) one week after. Patient data sets were retrospectively evaluated, comparing prostate volumes and planning target volumes (PTV). Volumes were delineated by a single radiation oncologist, blinded to whether the scan was VCT or PCT. Distances between the FMs were measured on both scans. Descriptive statistics described the data, DICE similarity co-efficient (DSC) calculated, and paired t-tests were used to compare paired data.

RESULTS

The median prostate volume was 35.09 cc and 36.31 cc for VCT and PCT data sets, respectively, and median PTV was 118.56 cc and 127.04 cc for VCT and PCT, respectively. There was no significant difference in prostate volumes (P = 0.3037) or PTV (P = 0.1279), with a DSC of 0.87 (range 0.76-0.91) and 0.91 (range 0.85 to 0.95), respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in distance between fiducial markers (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in prostate or PTV volumes (P > 0.05) between the CT acquired at fiducial marker insertion compared with the CT acquired a week later. Therefore, oedema is not significant enough to justify a delay between FM insertion and simulation.

Under conditions of large geometric miss, tumor control probability can be higher for static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy compared to volume-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

The purpose of this work was to compare static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) under scenarios involving large geometric misses, i.e., those beyond what are accounted for when margin expansion is determined. Using a planning approach typical for these treatments, a linear-quadratic-based model for TCP was used to compare mean TCP values for a population of patients who experiences a geometric miss (i.e., systematic and random shifts of the clinical target volume within the planning target dose distribution). A Monte Carlo approach was used to account for the different biological sensitivities of a population of patients. Interestingly, for errors consisting of coplanar systematic target volume offsets and three-dimensional random offsets, static gantry IMRT appears to offer an advantage over VMAT in that larger shift errors are tolerated for the same mean TCP. For example, under the conditions simulated, erroneous systematic shifts of 15mm directly between or directly into static gantry IMRT fields result in mean TCP values between 96% and 98%, whereas the same errors on VMAT plans result in mean TCP values between 45% and 74%. Random geometric shifts of the target volume were characterized using normal distributions in each Cartesian dimension. When the standard deviations were doubled from those values assumed in the derivation of the treatment margins, our model showed a 7% drop in mean TCP for the static gantry IMRT plans but a 20% drop in TCP for the VMAT plans. Although adding a margin for error to a clinical target volume is perhaps the best approach to account for expected geometric misses, this work suggests that static gantry IMRT may offer a treatment that is more tolerant to geometric miss errors than VMAT.