2014
Searching for an appropriate image-guided radiotherapy method in prostate cancer – implications for safety margin
VANASEK, Jaroslav, Karel ODRAZKA, Martin DOLEZEL, Ladislav DUŠEK, Jiří JARKOVSKÝ et. al.Základní údaje
Originální název
Searching for an appropriate image-guided radiotherapy method in prostate cancer – implications for safety margin
Autoři
VANASEK, Jaroslav (203 Česká republika), Karel ODRAZKA (203 Česká republika), Martin DOLEZEL (203 Česká republika), Ladislav DUŠEK (203 Česká republika, domácí), Jiří JARKOVSKÝ (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí), Ales HLAVKA (203 Česká republika), Eva VALENTOVA (203 Česká republika) a Iveta KOLAROVA (203 Česká republika)
Vydání
Tumori, Rome, Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore, 2014, 0300-8916
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
30200 3.2 Clinical medicine
Stát vydavatele
Řecko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 1.269
Kód RIV
RIV/00216224:14110/14:00078689
Organizační jednotka
Lékařská fakulta
UT WoS
000348335400008
Klíčová slova anglicky
Adaptive; Image guidance; Intensity-modulated radio-therapy; Prostate cancer; Radiation therapy
Štítky
Příznaky
Recenzováno
Změněno: 24. 4. 2015 13:39, Ing. Mgr. Věra Pospíšilíková
Anotace
V originále
Aims and background. The aim of the study was to compare the safety margin width using skin marks, pelvic skeleton-based targeting and adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching. Methods. A total of 434 consecutive patients were treated by image-guided radiotherapy from November 2008 to April 2012. An adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching with individualized safety margin calculation according to the Van Herk method was used in a total of 201 patients. The remaining 233 patients had their setup corrected using cone-beam computed tomography daily. Results. Analysis of the 3,137 cone-beam computed tomography images (201 patients) revealed that the margins between the clinical target volume and planning target volume with skin marks registration should be 1.24 cm in the anteroposterior, 0.98 cm in the craniocaudal, and 1.03 cm in the laterolateral direction. Considering pelvic skeleton-based setup, values of the clinical target volume and planning target volume margins in the anteroposterior, craniocaudal and laterolateral axis were 0.79 cm, 0.41 cm, and 0.19 cm, respectively. In a group of 8,872 cone-beam computed tomography images (233 patients) using CBCT assessment, the calculated margins between clinical target volume and planning target volume with skin marks were 1.15 cm in anteroposterior, 1.06 in craniocaudal, and 1.19 in laterolateral directions. Considering the pelvic skeleton-based setup, the corresponding values were 0.74 cm, 0.51 cm, and 0.25 cm. With the adaptive technique, the margins of most patients in the anteroposterior, craniocaudal, and laterolateral axes were 6 mm, 6 mm, and 6 mm or 8 mm, 6 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. Conclusions. The adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography and kilovoltage image matching or daily cone-beam computed tomography allowed us to substantially reduce the safety margins compared with skin marks targeting.