title: Evaluation of clinical margins via simulation of patient setup errors in prostate IMRT treatment plans.
abstract: This work evaluates: (i) the size of random and systematic setup errors that can be absorbed by 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins in prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); (ii) agreement between simulation results and published margin recipes; and (iii) whether shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution accurately predicts dose coverage due to setup errors. In 27 IMRT treatment plans created with 5 mm CTV-to-PTV margins, random setup errors with standard deviations (SDs) of 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 mm were simulated by fluence convolution. Systematic errors with identical SDs were simulated using two methods: (a) shifting the isocenter and recomputing dose (isocenter shift), and (b) shifting patient contours with respect to the static dose distribution (contour shift). Maximum tolerated setup errors were evaluated such that 90% of plans had target coverage equal to the planned PTV coverage. For coverage criteria consistent with published margin formulas, plans with 5 mm margins were found to absorb combined random and systematic SDs = 3 mm. Published recipes require margins of 8-10 mm for 3 mm SDs. For the prostate IMRT cases presented here a 5 mm margin would suffice, indicating that published recipes may be pessimistic. We found significant errors in individual plan doses given by the contour shift method. However, dose population plots (DPPs) given by the contour shift method agreed with the isocenter shift method for all structures except the nodal CTV and small bowel. For the nodal CTV, contour shift DPP differences were due to the structure moving outside the patient. Small bowel DPP errors were an artifact of large relative differences at low doses. Estimating individual plan doses by shifting contours with respect to a static dose distribution is not recommended. However, approximating DPPs is acceptable, provided care is taken with structures such as the nodal CTV which lie close to the surface.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO. Box 980058, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA. jgordon@mcvh-vcu.edu
authors.forename: J J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Gordon
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Crimaldi
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Hagan
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: J V
authors.initials: JV
authors.lastname: Siebers
mesh_terms: D016477:Artifacts; D001822:Body Burden; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004548:Elasticity; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D019300:Medical Errors / Q000517:prevention & control; D008954:Models, Biological; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity