Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Prostate-Centric Versus Bony-Centric Registration in the Definitive Treatment of Node-Positive Prostate Cancer with
Trudy C Wu1, Michael Xiang1, Nicholas G Nickols1,2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Purpose:
To determine the effect of daily shifts based on rigid registration to intraprostatic markers on coverage of boost doses delivered to gross nodal disease for prostate cancer.
Methods And Materials:
Seventy-five cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) from 15 patients treated with definitive radiation for clinically node-positive prostate cancer underwent fiducial-based and pelvic bony-based registration to the initial planning scans. Gross tumor volumes of nodal boost targets were contoured directly on each CBCT registration. The nodal displacement (3-dimensional translation from the node centroid on planning CT to node centroid on registered CBCT) and dose coverage (minimum dose [Dmin], mean dose [Dmean], dose delivered to 95% of the gross tumor volumes [D95]) were calculated for each registration on all nodal targets. All doses for each node were normalized to its intended prescription dose (dose covering 95% of a 3 mm planning target volume [PTV] expansion).
Results:
Forty-one gross nodal targets were analyzed. Most boosted nodes (80.5%, 33/41) were treated with conventional fractionation using volumetric-arc radiation therapy, and 19.5% (8/41) underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Dmin, Dmean, and D95 were all significantly lower with fiducial-based registration compared with bony-based registration (P < .0001). Nodal displacement was significantly higher for fiducial-based registrations (P < .0001). The 3-dimensional translation between the fiducial-based and bony-based registrations (bony-to-fiducial vector) was the most significant predictor of nodal displacement (P < .0001). On fiducial-based registrations, a 3 to 5 mm gross nodal PTV margin is sufficient in most directions; however, superior and posterior margins of 8 to 9 mm are required as a result of asymmetrical prostatic motion.
Conclusions:
Large and anisotropic PTV margins are likely needed to adequately dose gross nodal targets when patient setup is based on rigid registration to intraprostatic markers. Alternative approaches such as adaptive replanning may be required to overcome these limitations.
