Implementation and validation of a three-dimensional deformable registration algorithm for targeted prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Daily prostate deformation hinders accurate calculation of dose, especially to intraprostatic targets. We implemented a three-dimensional deformable registration algorithm to aid dose tracking for targeted prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The algorithm registers two computed tomography (CT) scans by iteratively minimizing their differences in image intensity. For validation, we measured the accuracy in registering (a) a pelvic CT set to its mathematically deformed counterpart, (b) CT scans of a deformable pelvic phantom with and without an endorectal balloon inflated, to simulate intraprostatic targets, 23 CT-opaque seeds were embedded in the prostate, and (c) two pelvic CT scans of a patient obtained on 2 separate days. RESULTS: The mean (SD) error in registering the pelvic CT set to its transformed set was 0.5 mm (1.5), with correlation coefficient improvement from 0.626 to 0.991. Using the deformable pelvic phantom, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.543 to 0.816 after registration. The mean (SD) error in tracking the intraprostatic seeds was 0.8 mm (0.5). The correlation coefficient improved from 0.610 to 0.944 after registration of the two patient CT sets. CONCLUSION: The algorithm had an accuracy of about 1 mm. It could be used for optimizing dose calculation and delivery for prostate radiotherapy.

Phase I clinical evaluation of near-simultaneous computed tomographic image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in a Phase I study the safety, feasibility, and patient-positioning accuracy of treating patients with intensity-modulated, near-simultaneous, computed tomographic (CT) image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with metastatic spinal disease who met protocol eligibility criteria were entered into a Phase I clinical trial. Each patient received five treatments of intensity-modulated, near-simultaneous CT image-guided SBRT, for a total of 75 treatments with 90 isocenter setups during the course of the study. Patients uniformly received 30 Gy (if possible) of radiotherapy in 5 fractions to the clinical target volume. The total dose was constrained by limiting the spinal cord to a maximum dose of 10 Gy. To verify correct daily patient positioning before each treatment and to determine the daily treatment setup error after radiation delivery, axial CT scans were taken before and immediately after each treatment without moving the patient from the treatment position, for comparison with the planning CT scan. Toxicity was measured using the Common Toxicity Criteria, the Late Effects of Normal Tissue scoring system and a neurologic function scale. Follow-up was conducted 4 weeks after completion of SBRT, and then 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: The procedure was technically feasible to perform in all patients. No neurologic toxicity was observed in any patient. The median follow-up time was 9 months (range 6-16). The Clopper-Pearson upper bound on the probability of paralysis with 95% confidence is no greater than 0.181. The positional setup error was determined to be within 1 mm of planning isocenter. CONCLUSIONS: This Phase I study shows that intensity-modulated, near simultaneous, CT image-guided SBRT is a feasible, and highly precise technique for the noninvasive treatment of spinal metastases. Although no paralysis has developed in the 15 patients treated, continued monitoring for spinal cord toxicity is warranted, as larger numbers of patients will be needed to more precisely define the upper bound on the probability of spinal cord myelopathy.