Mesorectal shape variation in rectal cancer radiotherapy in prone position using a belly board.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In rectal cancer patients, radiotherapy in prone position using a belly board can reduce the dose to organs at risk. For this patient group we investigated inter-fraction shape variation of the mesorectal part of the clinical target volume (CTV) and determined planning target volume (PTV) margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy were eligible. For each patient a planning computed tomography (pCT) and five cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired in prone position using a belly board. The mesorectal CTV was delineated on all scans. Mesorectal shape variation was quantified relative to the pCT. PTV margins were derived locally and averaged for separate subregions of the mesorectal CTV. For each patient a total PTV was constructed using our clinical margins for mesorectal and lymph node CTVs. An artificial dose distribution conforming to this PTV was used to calculate the coverage for the mesorectal CTV using the CBCT delineations. RESULTS: In 19 rectal cancer patients the derived PTV margins were smallest in the upper-lateral region (6 mm) and largest in the upper-anterior region (16 mm). PTV margins for the upper-anterior region were larger for female patients (19 mm) compared to male patients (14 mm). Clinical margins for the total PTV were sufficient for a coverage of at least 97% of the mesorectal CTV for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mesorectal shape variation is heterogeneous and largest in the upper-anterior region, in rectal cancer patients irradiated in prone position and using a belly board.

Prone Positioning on a Belly Board Decreases Rectal and Bowel Doses in Pelvic Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Prostate Cancer.

The presence of normal tissues in the irradiated volume limits dose escalation during pelvic radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer. Supine and prone positions on a belly board were compared by analyzing the exposure of organs at risk (OARs) using intensity modulated RT (IMRT). The prospective trial included 55 high risk, localized or locally advanced prostate cancer patients, receiving definitive image-guided RT. Computed tomography scanning for irradiation planning was carried out in both positions. Gross tumor volume, clinical and planning target volumes (PTV) and OARs were delineated, defining subprostatic and periprostatic rectal subsegments. At the height of the largest antero-posterior (AP) diameter of the prostate, rectal diameters and distance from the posterior prostate wall were measured. IMRT plans were generated. Normal tissue exposure and structure volumes were compared between supine and prone plans using paired t-test. In the volumes of the prostate, PTV, colon and small bowel, no significant differences were found. In prone position, all rectal volumes, diameters, and rectum-prostate distance were significantly higher, the irradiated colon and small bowel volume was lower in dose ranges of 20-40 Gy, and the exposure to all rectal segments was more favorable in 40-75 Gy dose ranges. No significant difference was found in the exposure of other OARs. Prone positioning on a belly board is an appropriate positioning method aiming rectum and bowel protection during pelvic IMRT of prostate cancer. The relative reduction in rectal exposure might be a consequence of the slight departure between the prostate and rectal wall.

Volumetric and dosimetric comparison of organs at risk between the prone and supine positions in postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of patient positioning on the volume of organs at risk (OARs) in or near the planning target volume (PTV) and the dose distribution in adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer after prostatectomy. METHODS: Seventeen patients who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions) as adjuvant or salvage therapy after prostatectomy were evaluated. All patients underwent CT scans in both the prone (on a belly board) and supine positions. The target volumes and OARs were delineated on each CT series. The planning target volume (PTV) was extended in every direction to generate the PTV + 0.5 cm, PTV + 1 cm, PTV + 2 cm, PTV + 3 cm, and PTV + 4 cm values. The volumes of the OARs overlapping with the PTV and the extended target volumes in the prone and supine position were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters in the prone and supine position were compared using the paired t-test. RESULTS: The mean overlapping volumes of the small intestine for each of the PTV values were as follows (prone position vs. supine position [mean ± SD]): PTV, 1.5 ± 5.5 cm3 vs. 7.9 ± 15.7 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 0.5 cm, 2.6 ± 8.9 cm3 vs. 12.1 ± 22.6 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 1 cm, 3.5 ± 11.4 cm3 vs. 17.1 ± 29.8 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 2 cm, 5.6 ± 14.5 cm3 vs. 26.8 ± 46.9 cm3 (P = 0.028); and PTV + 3 cm, 9.0 ± 17.4 cm3 vs. 36.5 ± 63.2 cm3 (P = 0.019), respectively. Some of the overlapping volumes of the rectum and bladder were significantly smaller in the prone position. On the other hand, when the target volume was extended by ≥2 cm, the overlapping volumes of the femurs were significantly larger in the prone position. V15 of the rectum and mean dose and V65 of the bladder were significantly lower in the prone position. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the volumes of the small intestine, rectum, and bladder in or near the PTV decreased when the patient was placed in the prone position on a belly board in postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The dose distribution seemed superior in the prone position to the supine position.

Daily Setup Accuracy, Side-effects and Quality of Life During and After Prone Positioned Prostate Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Exposure of organs at risk with prostate radiotherapy (RT) is lower in the prone position. This study is a prospective evaluation of setup accuracy, side-effects, and quality of life (QOL) during and after prone positioned RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Image-guided (IG) intensity-modulated (IM) RT was administered in prone position on belly-board to 55 high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. Rectum diameters were measured in two areas of the symphysis at the beginning of RT and during it. Side-effects, QOL, and prostate specific symptoms (PSS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Setup accuracy was similar to that reported in the literature. In the upper area of symphysis rectal diameters were significantly changed during treatment, but in the prostate region, no difference was detected. No change was detected in patients' QOL and PSS during treatment, but after RT, they improved. CONCLUSION: Prone positioned IG-IMRT is feasible with tolerable side-effects for high-risk PC patients. Changes in QOL and PSS are insignificant during RT, while improvement after RT suggests a rapid recovery.

In vivo Portal Imaging Dosimetry Identifies Delivery Errors in Rectal Cancer Radiotherapy on the Belly Board Device.

PURPOSE: We recently developed a novel, open-source in vivo dosimetry that uses the electronic portal imaging device to detect dose delivery discrepancies. We applied our method on patients with rectal cancer treated on a belly board device. METHODS: In vivo dosimetry was performed on 10 patients with rectal cancer treated prone on the belly board with a 4-field box arrangement. Portal images were acquired approximately once per week from each treatment beam. Our dosimetry method used these images along with the planning CT to reconstruct patient planar dose at isocenter depth. RESULTS: Our algorithm proved sensitive to dose discrepancies and detected discordances in 7 patients. The majority of these were due to soft tissue differences between planning and treatment, present despite matching to bony anatomy. As a result of this work, quality assurance procedures have been implemented for our immobilization devices. CONCLUSION: In vivo dosimetry is a powerful quality assurance tool that can detect delivery discrepancies, including changes in patient setup and position. The added information on actual dose delivery may be used to evaluate equipment and process quality and to guide for adaptive radiotherapy.

The Role of Image-guided Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Anorectal Cancer Using Prone Belly-board Positioning.

AIM: To evaluate Radiation Therapy Oncology Group planning target volume margins of 7-10 mm for radiation therapy in anorectal cancer using prone belly-board positioning without image guidance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 375 kV cone beam computed tomography image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) images from 20 patients treated for anorectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed for setup shifts. We calculated the total translational shift for each patient and the frequency with which setup shifts exceeded 7 mm and 10 mm. RESULTS: A total of 42.7% of treatments required shifts >7 mm and 20.8% >10 mm. The mean translational shift was 7.1 mm. 70% of patients experienced shifts ≥7 mm in 20% or more of their treatments and 25% of ≥10 mm in 20% or more of their treatments; 15% experienced shifts ≥10 mm in over half of their treatments. van Herk calculations suggest margins of 12.8 mm are necessary for accuracy without IGRT. CONCLUSION: IGRT using a prone belly board and 7-10 mm margins requires daily image-guidance to prevent planning target volume misses and ensure optimal dose delivery.

Role of belly board device in the age of intensity modulated radiotherapy for pelvic irradiation.

Small bowel dose often represents a limiting factor for radiation treatment of pelvic malignancies. To reduce small bowel toxicity, a belly board device (BBD) with a prone position is often recommended. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) could reduce dose to small bowel based on the desired dose-volume constraints. We investigated the efficacy of BBD in conjunction with IMRT. A total of 11 consecutive patients with the diagnosis of rectal cancer, who were candidates for definitive therapy, were selected. Patients were immobilized with BBD in prone position for simulation and treatment. Supine position computed tomography (CT) data were either acquired at the same time or during a diagnostic scan, and if existed was used. Target volumes (TV) as well as organs at risk (OAR) were delineated in both studies. Three-dimensional conformal treatment (3DCRT) and IMRT plans were made for both scans. Thus for each patient, 4 plans were generated. Statistical analysis was conducted for maximum, minimum, and mean dose to each structure. When comparing the normalized mean Gross TV dose for the different plans, there was no statistical difference found between the planning types. There was a significant difference in small bowel sparing when using prone position on BBD comparing 3DCRT and IMRT plans, favoring IMRT with a 29.6% reduction in dose (p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant difference in small bowel sparing when comparing supine position IMRT to prone-BBD IMRT favoring prone-BBD IMRT with a reduction of 30.3% (p = 0.002). For rectal cancer when small bowel could be a limiting factor, prone position using BBD along with IMRT provides the best sparing. We conclude that whenever a dose escalation in rectal cancer is desired where small bowel could be limiting factor, IMRT in conjunction with BBD should be selected.

Morphologic change of rectosigmoid colon using belly board and distended bladder protocol.

PURPOSE: This study investigates morphologic change of the rectosigmoid colon using a belly board in prone position and distended bladder in patients with rectal cancer. We evaluate the possibility of excluding the proximal margin of anastomosis from the radiation field by straightening the rectosigmoid colon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients who received preoperative radiotherapy between 2006 and 2009 underwent simulation in a prone position (group A). These patients were compared to 19 patients treated using a belly board in prone position and a distended bladder protocol (group B). Rectosigmoid colon in the pelvic cavity was delineated on planning computed tomography (CT) images. A total dose of 45 Gy was planned for the whole pelvic field with superior margin of the sacral promontory. The volume and redundancy of rectosigmoid colon was assessed. RESULTS: Patients in group B had straighter rectosigmoid colons than those in group A (no redundancy; group A vs. group B, 10% vs. 42%; p = 0.03). The volume of rectosigmoid colon in the radiation field was significantly larger in group A (56.7 vs. 49.1 mL; p = 0.009). In dose volume histogram analysis, the mean irradiated volume was lower in patients in group B (V45 27.2 vs. 18.2 mL; p = 0.004). In Pearson correlation coefficient analysis, the in-field volume of rectosigmoid colon was significantly correlated with the bladder volume (R = 0.86, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Use of a belly board and distended bladder protocol could contribute to exclusion of the proximal margin of anastomosis from the radiation field.

Evaluating QUANTEC Small Bowel Dose-Volume Guidelines for Rectal Cancer Patients Treated Using a Couch Top Inclined Belly Board.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to analyse small bowel (SB) dose-volume following the Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines for rectal cancer patients treated using a couch top inclined belly board (iBB). As part of this, the consistency in SB displacement was evaluated using on-treatment cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with rectal cancer were treated on a commercially available iBB. All patients went through the standard radiochemotherapy protocol in either a pre- or postoperative setup. All patients underwent weekly CBCT imaging during the course of radiation treatment. The planning computed tomographic data sets were used to analyze the quality of SB displacement, and the CBCT data sets were used to assess the reproducibility in SB displacement during treatment. The SB dose volume was evaluated and compared with QUANTEC-recommended dose limitations. Similarly, the impact of body mass index on dose volume and SB displacement was evaluated. RESULTS: The SB displacement was assessed respectively as "good" and "very good" by both independent evaluating radiation oncologists. The consistency of SB displacement through the course of radiation treatment was scored as "excellent" for 22 of 24 and 23 of 24 patients by both radiation oncologists, respectively. The QUANTEC recommendation was met for all patients without bowel adhesions; however, the most benefit was observed for patients with body mass index > 23 kg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown that QUANTEC recommendations for SB dose during rectal cancer treatment can easily be met by treating patients on a couch top iBB. This technique is robust and produces consistent SB displacement.