Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer

Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high-risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV1) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV1). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV2) then received 56 Gy to PTV2. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions. After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV3) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field.

Utilizing CT-CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 mm. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm.

In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.