Search

Background: Radiotherapy of the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (LN) is a part of the standard of care treatment for high‐risk prostate cancer. The independent translational and rotational (i.e., six‐degrees‐of‐freedom, [6DoF]) motion of the prostate and LN target during and between fractions can perturb the dose distribution. However, no standard dose reconstruction method accounting for differential 6DoF target motion is available. Purpose: We present a framework for monitoring motion‐induced dose perturbations for two independently moving target volumes in 6DoF. The framework was used to determine the dose perturbation for the prostate and the LN target caused by differential 6DoF motion for a cohort of high‐risk prostate cancer patients. As a potential first step toward real‐time dose‐guided high‐risk prostate radiotherapy, we furthermore investigated if the dose reconstruction was fast enough for real‐time application for both targets. Methods: Twenty high‐risk prostate cancer patients were treated with 3‐arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) with triggered kilovoltage (kV) images acquired every 3 throughout 7–10 fractions per patient was used for retrospective 6DoF intrafraction prostate motion estimation. The 6DoF interfraction LN motion was determined from a pelvic bone match between the planning CT and a post‐treatment cone beam CT (CBCT). Using the retrospectively extracted motion, real‐time 6DoF motion‐including dose reconstruction was simulated using the in‐house developed software DoseTracker. A data stream with the 6DoF target positions and linac parameters was broadcasted at a 3‐Hz frequency to DoseTracker. In a continuous loop, DoseTracker calculated the target dose increments including the specified motion and, for comparison, without motion. The motion‐induced change in D99.5% for the prostate CTV (ΔD99.5%) and in D98% for the LN CTV (ΔD98%) was calculated using the final cumulative dose of each fraction and averaged over all imaged fractions. The real‐time reconstructed dose distribution of DoseTracker was benchmarked against a clinical treatment planning system (TPS) and it was investigated whether the calculation speed was fast enough to keep up with the incoming data stream. Results: Translational motion was largest in cranio‐caudal (CC) direction (prostate: [‐5.9, +8.4] mm; LN: [‐9.9; +11.0] mm) and anterior–posterior (AP) direction (prostate:[‐5.6; +6.9] mm; LN: [‐9.6; +11.0] mm). The pitch was the largest rotation (prostate: [‐22.5; +25.2] deg; LN: [‐3.9; +5.5] deg). The prostate CTV ΔD99.5% was [‐16.2; +2.5]% for single fractions and [‐3.0; +1.7]% when averaged over all imaged fractions. The LN CTV ΔD98% was [‐19.8; +1.2]% for single fractions and [‐3.1; +0.9]% after averaging. Mean (Standard deviation) absolute dose errors in DoseTracker of 107.8% (Std: 1.9%) for the prostate and 105.5% (Std:1.4%) for the LN were corrected during dose reconstruction by automatically calculated normalization factors. It resulted in accurate calculation of the motion‐induced dose errors with relative differences between DoseTracker and TPS dose calculations of ‐0.1% (Std: 0.5%) (prostate CTV ΔD99.5%) and ‐0.2% (Std: 0.5%) (LN CTV ΔD98%). The DoseTracker calculation was fast enough to keep up with the incoming inputs for all but two out of 107 184 dose calculations. Conclusion: Using the developed framework for dose perturbation monitoring, we found that the differential 6DoF target motion caused substantial dose perturbation for individual fractions, which largely averaged out after several fractions. The framework was shown to provide reliable dose calculations and a sufficiently high‐dose reconstruction speed to be applicable in real‐time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), prostate tumor translational motion may deteriorate the planned dose distribution. Most of the major advances in motion management to date have focused on correcting this one aspect of the tumor motion, translation. However, large prostate rotation up to 30° has been measured. As the technological innovation evolves toward delivering increasingly precise radiotherapy, it is important to quantify the clinical benefit of translational and rotational motion correction over translational motion correction alone. Purpose: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of intrafractional dynamic rotation of the prostate measured with a six degrees‐of‐freedom tumor motion monitoring technology. Methods: The delivered dose was reconstructed including (a) translational and rotational motion and (b) only translational motion of the tumor for 32 prostate cancer patients recruited on a 5‐fraction prostate SBRT clinical trial. Patients on the trial received 7.25 Gy in a treatment fraction. A 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was applied in all directions except the posterior direction where a 3 mm expansion was used. Prostate intrafractional translational motion was managed using a gating strategy, and any translation above the gating threshold was corrected by applying an equivalent couch shift. The residual translational motion is denoted as Tres$T_{res}$. Prostate intrafractional rotational motion Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$ was recorded but not corrected. The dose differences from the planned dose due to Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$, ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$) and due to Tres$T_{res}$ alone, ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$), were then determined for CTV D98, PTV D95, bladder V6Gy, and rectum V6Gy. The residual dose error due to uncorrected rotation, Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$ was then quantified: ΔDResidual$\Delta D_{Residual}$ = ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$) ‐ ΔD(Tres${T}_{\textit{res}}$). Results: Fractional data analysis shows that the dose differences from the plan (both ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$) and ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$)) for CTV D98 was less than 5% in all treatment fractions. ΔD(Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$) was larger than 5% in one fraction for PTV D95, in one fraction for bladder V6Gy, and in five fractions for rectum V6Gy. Uncorrected rotation, Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$ induced residual dose error, ΔDResidual$\Delta D_{Residual}$, resulted in less dose to CTV and PTV in 43% and 59% treatment fractions, respectively, and more dose to bladder and rectum in 51% and 53% treatment fractions, respectively. The cumulative dose over five fractions, ∑D(Tres$T_{res}$ + Runcorr$R_{uncorr}$) and ∑D(Tres$T_{res}$), was always within 5% of the planned dose for all four structures for every patient. Conclusions: The dosimetric impact of tumor rotation on a large prostate cancer patient cohort was quantified in this study. These results suggest that the standard 3–5 mm CTV‐PTV margin was sufficient to account for the intrafraction prostate rotation observed for this cohort of patients, provided an appropriate gating threshold was applied to correct for translational motion. Residual dose errors due to uncorrected prostate rotation were small in magnitude, which may be corrected using different treatment adaptation strategies to further improve the dosimetric accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]