182 141

Cited 1 times in

Optimal planning target margin for prostate radiotherapy based on interfractional and intrafractional variability assessment during 1.5T MRI-guided radiotherapy

Authors
 Jina Kim  ;  Jiwon Sung  ;  Seo Jin Lee  ;  Kang Su Cho  ;  Byung Ha Chung  ;  Dongjoon Yang  ;  Jihun Kim  ;  Jun Won Kim 
Citation
 FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, Vol.13, 2023-12 
Journal Title
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Issue Date
2023-12
Keywords
MRI-guided radiotherapy ; PTV margin ; interfractional setup margin ; interobserver variability ; intrafractional motion ; prostate cancer
Abstract
Introduction: We analyzed daily pre-treatment- (PRE) and real-time motion monitoring- (MM) MRI scans of patients receiving definitive prostate radiotherapy (RT) with 1.5 T MRI guidance to assess interfractional and intrafractional variability of the prostate and suggest optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin.

Materials and methods: Rigid registration between PRE-MRI and planning CT images based on the pelvic bone and prostate anatomy were performed. Interfractional setup margin (SM) and interobserver variability (IO) were assessed by comparing the centroid values of prostate contours delineated on PRE-MRIs. MM-MRIs were used for internal margin (IM) assessment, and PTV margin was calculated using the van Herk formula.

Results: We delineated 400 prostate contours on PRE-MRI images. SM was 0.57 ± 0.42, 2.45 ± 1.98, and 2.28 ± 2.08 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively, after bone localization and 0.76 ± 0.57, 1.89 ± 1.60, and 2.02 ± 1.79 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. IO was 1.06 ± 0.58, 2.32 ± 1.08, and 3.30 ± 1.85 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after bone localization and 1.11 ± 0.55, 2.13 ± 1.07, and 3.53 ± 1.65 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. Average IM was 2.12 ± 0.86, 2.24 ± 1.07, and 2.84 ± 0.88 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Calculated PTV margin was 2.21, 5.16, and 5.40 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively.

Conclusions: Movements in the SI direction were the largest source of variability in definitive prostate RT, and interobserver variability was a non-negligible source of margin. The optimal PTV margin should also consider the internal margin.
Files in This Item:
T202400171.pdf Download
DOI
10.3389/fonc.2023.1337626
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Jun Won(김준원) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-364X
Kim, Jihun(김지훈) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4856-6305
Kim, Jina(김진아)
Sung, Jiwon(성지원)
Chung, Byung Ha(정병하) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-3660
Cho, Kang Su(조강수) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-8833
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/197825
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links