Intrafraction Prostate Motion Management for Ultra-Hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: Determine the time-dependent magnitude of intrafraction prostate displacement and a cutoff for the tracking decision. Methods: Nine patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (CyberKnife) with fiducial markers. Exact tract kV/kV imaging was used with an average interval of 19−92 s. A Gaussian distribution was calculated for the x-, y-, and z-directions (σx,y,z). The variation of prostate motion (µσ) was obtained by averaging the patients' specifics, and the safety margin was calculated to be MAB = WYm + WBSs. Results: The calculated PTV safety margins were as follows: at 40 s: 0.55 mm (L/r), 0.85 mm (a/p), and 1.05 mm (s/i); at 60 s: 0.9 mm (L/r), 1.35 mm (a/p), and 1.55 mm (s/i); at 100 s: 1.5 mm (L/r), 2.3 mm (a/p), and 2.6 mm (s/i); at 150 s: 1.9 mm (L/r), 3.1 mm (a/p), and 3.6 mm (s/i); at 200 s: 2.2 mm (L/r), 3.8 mm (a/p), and 4.2 mm (s/i); and at 300 s: 2.6 mm (L/r), 5.3 mm (a/p), and 5.6 mm (s/i). A tracking cutoff of 2.5 min seemed reasonable. In order to achieve an accuracy of < 1 mm, tracking with < 50 s intervals was necessary. Conclusions: For ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy of the prostate with treatment times > 2.5 min, intrafraction motion management is recommended.

Long-term intra-fractional motion of the prostate using hydrogel spacer during Cyberknife® treatment for prostate cancer--a case report.

BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer to apply high single doses in a few fractions. Using the Cyberknife® robotic system multiple non-coplanar fields are usually given with a treatment time of one hour or more. We planned to evaluate organ motion in this setting injecting a hydrogel spacer to protect the anterior rectal wall during treatment. METHODS: A 66 years old man with low risk prostate cancer was planned for robotic hypofractionated stereotactic RT. After implantation of fiducial markers and a hydrogel spacer a total dose of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions was given to the planning target volume (clinical target volume + 3 mm). After each beam the corresponding data reporting on the intra-fractional movement were pre-processed, the generated log-files extracted and the data analysed according to different directions: left -right (LR); anterior - posterior (AP); inferior -superior (IS). Clinical assessments were prospectively done before RT start, one week after the end of treatment as well as 1, 6 and 12 months afterwards. Symptoms were documented using Common Toxicity and Adverse Events Criteria 4.0. RESULTS: Tolerability of marker and hydrogel implantation was excellent. A total of 284 non-coplanar fields were used per fraction. The total treatment time for all fields per fraction lasted more than 60 minutes. The detected and corrected movements over all 5 fractions were in a range of +/- 4 mm in all directions (LR: mean 0,238 - SD 0,798; AP: mean 0,450 - SD 1,690; and IS: mean 0,908 - SD 1,518). V36Gy for the rectum was 0.062 ccm. After RT, grade 1-2 intestinal toxicity and grade 1 genitourinarytoxicity occurred, but resolved completely after 10 days. On 1-, 6- and 12-months follow-up the patient was free of any symptoms with only slight decrease of erectile function (grade 1). There was a continuous PSA decline. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate movement was relatively low (+/- 4 mm) even during fraction times of more than 60 minutes. The hydrogel spacer might serve as a kind of stabilisator for the prostate, but this should be analysed in a larger cohort of patients.

Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculation of tomotherapy and cyberknife treatment planning systems: a dosimetric study.

PURPOSE: Late toxicities such as second cancer induction become more important as treatment outcome improves. Often the dose distribution calculated with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) is used to estimate radiation carcinogenesis for the radiotherapy patient. However, for locations beyond the treatment field borders, the accuracy is not well known. The aim of this study was to perform detailed out-of-field-measurements for a typical radiotherapy treatment plan administered with a Cyberknife and a Tomotherapy machine and to compare the measurements to the predictions of the TPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The measured dose distributions from 6 MV intensity-modulated treatment beams for CyberKnife and TomoTherapy machines were compared to the dose calculations from the TPS. RESULTS: The TPS are underestimating the dose far away from the target volume. Quantitatively the Cyberknife underestimates the dose at 40 cm from the PTV border by a factor of 60, the Tomotherapy TPS by a factor of two. If a 50% dose uncertainty is accepted, the Cyberknife TPS can predict doses down to approximately 10 mGy/treatment Gy, the Tomotherapy-TPS down to 0.75 mGy/treatment Gy. The Cyberknife TPS can then be used up to 10 cm from the PTV border the Tomotherapy up to 35 cm. CONCLUSIONS: We determined that the Cyberknife and Tomotherapy TPS underestimate substantially the doses far away from the treated volume. It is recommended not to use out-of-field doses from the Cyberknife TPS for applications like modeling of second cancer induction. The Tomotherapy TPS can be used up to 35 cm from the PTV border (for a 390 cm(3) large PTV).