Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Mar 8;16(2):5013.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5013.

Intrafractional prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy monitored by a real-time target localization system

Affiliations

Intrafractional prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy monitored by a real-time target localization system

Xu Tong et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

This paper investigates the clinical significance of real-time monitoring of intrafractional prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy using a commercial 4D localization system. Intrafractional prostate motion was tracked during 8,660 treatment fractions for 236 patients. The following statistics were analyzed: 1) the percentage of fractions in which the prostate shifted 2-7 mm for a certain duration; 2) the proportion of the entire tracking time during which the prostate shifted 2-7mm; and 3) the proportion of each minute in which the shift exceeded 2-7 mm. The ten patients exhibiting maximum intrafractional-motion patterns were analyzed separately. Our results showed that the percentage of fractions in which the prostate shifted by > 2, 3, 5, and 7 mm off the baseline in any direction for > 30 s was 56.8%, 27.2%, 4.6%, and 0.7% for intact prostate and 68.7%, 35.6%, 10.1%, and 1.8% for postprostatectomy patients, respectively. For the ten patients, these percentages were 91.3%, 72.4%, 36.3%, and 6%, respectively. The percentage of tracking time during which the prostate shifted > 2, 3, 5, and 7 mm was 27.8%, 10.7%, 1.6%, and 0.3%, respectively, and it was 56.2%, 33.7%, 11.2%, and 2.1%, respectively, for the ten patients. The percentage of tracking time for a > 3 mm posterior motion was four to five times higher than that in other directions. For treatments completed in 5 min (VMAT) and 10 min (IMRT), the proportion for the prostate to shift by > 3mm was 4% and 12%, respectively. Although intrafractional prostate motion was generally small, caution should be taken for patients who exhibit frequent large intrafractional motion. For those patients, adjustment of patient positioning may be necessary or a larger treatment margin may be used. After the initial alignment, the likelihood of prostate motion increases with time. Therefore, it is favorable to use advanced techniques (e.g., VMAT) that require less delivery time in order to reduce the treatment uncertainty resulting from intrafractional prostate motion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The proportion of each minute in which the prostate displacement was more than 2, 3, 5, or 7 mm in any direction. For this plot, the prostate displacement for the first, second, and each of the subsequent minutes from all tracking fractions was analyzed separately.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The proportion for the prostate to shift more than 2, 3, 5, or 7 mm as a function of the total tracking time. For this plot, the prostate displacement for the first 5 min, and each of the subsequent minutes of the whole tracking time was presented together with a polynomial fit.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Langen KM and Jones DT. Organ motion and its management. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(1):265–78. - PubMed
    1. Kitamura K, Shirato H, Seppenwoolde Y, et al. Three‐dimensional intrafractional movement of prostate measured during real‐time tumor‐tracking radiotherapy in supine and prone treatment positions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(5):1117–23. - PubMed
    1. Li HS, Chetty IJ, Enke CA, et al. Dosimetric consequences of intrafraction prostate motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):801–12. - PubMed
    1. Lattanzi J, McNeeley S, Pinover W, et al. A comparison of daily CT localization to a daily ultrasound‐based system in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(4):719–25. - PubMed
    1. Scarbrough TJ, Golden NM, Ting JY, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and implanted seed marker prostate localization methods: implications for image‐guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(2):378–87. - PubMed

MeSH terms