Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 11, 2026
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Prostate bed target interfractional motion using RTOG consensus definitions and daily CT on rails : Does target
Vivek Verma1, Shifeng Chen2, Sumin Zhou1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA.
Purpose:
Using high-quality CT-on-rails imaging, the daily motion of the prostate bed clinical target volume (PB-CTV) based on consensus Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) definitions (instead of surgical clips/fiducials) was studied. It was assessed whether PB motion in the superior portion of PB-CTV (SUP-CTV) differed from the inferior PB-CTV (INF-CTV).
Patients And Methods:
Eight pT2-3bN0-1M0 patients underwent postprostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy, totaling 300 fractions. INF-CTV and SUP-CTV were defined as PB-CTV located inferior and superior to the superior border of the pubic symphysis, respectively. Daily pretreatment CT-on-rails images were compared to the planning CT in the left-right (LR), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. Two parameters were defined: "total PB-CTV motion" represented total shifts from skin tattoos to RTOG-defined anatomic areas; "PB-CTV target motion" (performed for both SUP-CTV and INF-CTV) represented shifts from bone to RTOG-defined anatomic areas (i. e., subtracting shifts from skin tattoos to bone).
Results:
Mean (± standard deviation, SD) total PB-CTV motion was -1.5 (± 6.0), 1.3 (± 4.5), and 3.7 (± 5.7) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) PB-CTV target motion was 0.2 (±1.4), 0.3 (±2.4), and 0 (±3.1) mm in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) INF-CTV target motion was 0.1 (± 2.8), 0.5 (± 2.2), and 0.2 (± 2.5) mm, and SUP-CTV target motion was 0.3 (± 1.8), 0.5 (± 2.3), and 0 (± 5.0) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. No statistically significant differences between INF-CTV and SUP-CTV motion were present in any direction.
Conclusion:
There are no statistically apparent motion differences between SUP-CTV and INF-CTV. Current uniform planning target volume (PTV) margins are adequate to cover both portions of the CTV.
