RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: For high-dose radiation therapy (RT) of prostate cancer, image-guided (IGRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) approaches are standard. Less is known regarding comparisons of different IGRT techniques and the resulting residual errors, as well as regarding their influences on dose distributions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 58 patients who received tomotherapy-based RT up to 84 Gy for high-risk prostate cancer underwent IGRT based either on daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) alone (n = 43) or the additional use of gold markers (n = 15) under routine conditions. Planned Adaptive (Accuray Inc., Madison, WI, USA) software was used for elaborated offline analysis to quantify residual interfractional prostate positioning errors, along with systematic and random errors and the resulting safety margins after both IGRT approaches. Dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and exposition of organs at risk (OAR) were also analyzed and compared. Interfractional as well as intrafractional displacements were determined. RESULTS: Particularly in the vertical direction, residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using the gold marker-based approach, but dosimetric differences were moderate and the clinical relevance relatively small. Intrafractional prostate motion proved to be quite high, with displacements of 1-3 mm; however, these did not result in additional dosimetric impairments. CONCLUSION: Residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using gold marker-based IGRT; however, this resulted in only slightly different final dose distributions. Therefore, daily MVCT-based IGRT without markers might be a valid alternative.