Impact of prostate focused alignment on planned pelvic lymph node dose
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 29, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Joshua Kilian-Meneghin1, Tianjun Ma1, Lalith Kumaraswamy1
1Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Purpose:
Prostate patients with positive lymph node margins receive an initial course of 45 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) comprised of prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes with a 1-cm margin. The prostate is localized via implanted fiducial markers before each fraction is delivered using portal-imaging. However, the pelvic lymph nodes are affixed to the bony anatomy and are not mobile in concert with the prostate. The aim of this study was to determine whether a significant difference in pelvic lymph node coverage exists between planned and delivered external beam therapy treatments for these patients.
Methods:
The recorded prostate motions were gathered for 19 patients; conjointly the pelvic lymph node motions were determined by manual registration of the bony anatomy in the kV-images. The difference between the prostate and the bony anatomy coordinates was input into Eclipse as field shifts to represent the deviation in planned vs delivered pelvic lymph node coverage.
Results:
Structure volume at V(100) was recorded for each patient for two structures: summed pelvic lymph nodes (LN CTV) and pelvic lymph nodes +1 cm margin (LN PTV) to express their contribution to the PTV. For the LN PTV, the average difference between the planned coverage and calculated delivered coverage was 3.5%, with a paired t-test value of P = 0.005. Based upon bony anatomy registration, 26% of patients received less than 95% dose coverage using V(100) criteria for LN PTV. Dose value differences between the two plans at minimum were 6.96 ± 6.23 Gy, at mean were 0.54 ± 0.40 Gy, and at maximum were 0.10 ± 0.29 Gy. For the LN CTV, the average difference between the planned coverage and calculated delivered coverage was 1%, with a paired t-test value of P = 0.53.
Conclusions:
The results indicate a significant difference exists between the planned coverage and calculated delivered coverage for the LN PTV. There was no significant difference found for the LN CTV. We conclude that lymph node motion must be considered with the prostate motion when aligning patients before each fraction.
