International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2005
The effect of an endorectal balloon and off-line correction on the interfraction systematic and random prostate position variations: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Lin Emile N J Th, van der Vight Lisette P, Witjes J Alfred, Huisman Henkjan J, Leer Jan Willem, Visser Andries G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of an endorectal balloon (ERB) and an off-line correction protocol on the day-to-day, interfraction prostate gland motion, in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 22 patients, irradiated with an ERB in situ (ERB group) and in 30 patients without an ERB (No-ERB group), prostate displacements were measured daily in three orthogonal directions with portal images. Implanted gold markers and an off-line electronic portal imaging correction protocol were used for prostate position verification and correction. Movie loops were analyzed to evaluate prostate motion and rectal filling variations.
RESULTS: The off-line correction protocol reduced the systematic prostate displacements, equally for the ERB and No-ERB group, to 1.3-1.8 mm (1 SD). The mean 3D displacement was reduced to 2.8 mm and 2.4 mm for the ERB and No-ERB group, respectively. The random interfraction displacements, relative to the treatment isocenter, were not reduced by the ERB and remained nearly unchanged in all three directions: 3.1 mm (1 SD) left-right, 2.6 mm (1 SD) superior-inferior, and 4.7 mm (1 SD) for the anterior-posterior direction. These day-to-day prostate position variations can be explained by the presence of gas and stool beside the ERB.
CONCLUSIONS: The off-line corrections on the fiducial markers are effective in reducing the systematic prostate displacements. The investigated ERB does not reduce the interfraction prostate motion. Although the overall mean displacement is low, the day-to-day interfraction motion, especially in anterior-posterior direction, remains high compared with the systematic displacements.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 22 patients, irradiated with an ERB in situ (ERB group) and in 30 patients without an ERB (No-ERB group), prostate displacements were measured daily in three orthogonal directions with portal images. Implanted gold markers and an off-line electronic portal imaging correction protocol were used for prostate position verification and correction. Movie loops were analyzed to evaluate prostate motion and rectal filling variations.
RESULTS: The off-line correction protocol reduced the systematic prostate displacements, equally for the ERB and No-ERB group, to 1.3-1.8 mm (1 SD). The mean 3D displacement was reduced to 2.8 mm and 2.4 mm for the ERB and No-ERB group, respectively. The random interfraction displacements, relative to the treatment isocenter, were not reduced by the ERB and remained nearly unchanged in all three directions: 3.1 mm (1 SD) left-right, 2.6 mm (1 SD) superior-inferior, and 4.7 mm (1 SD) for the anterior-posterior direction. These day-to-day prostate position variations can be explained by the presence of gas and stool beside the ERB.
CONCLUSIONS: The off-line corrections on the fiducial markers are effective in reducing the systematic prostate displacements. The investigated ERB does not reduce the interfraction prostate motion. Although the overall mean displacement is low, the day-to-day interfraction motion, especially in anterior-posterior direction, remains high compared with the systematic displacements.