title: A comparison of daily megavoltage CT and ultrasound image guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
abstract: In order to quantify the differences between ultrasound-imaging and megavoltage-CT (MVCT) daily prostate localization in prostate-cancer radiotherapy and their dosimetric impacts, daily shifts were analyzed for a total of 140 prostate cancer patients; 106 positioned using ultrasound-based imaging [B-mode Acquisition and Targeting (BAT)], and 34 using the MVCT from a TomoTherapy Hi-Art unit. The shifts indicated by the two systems were compared statistically along the right/left (R/L), superior/inferior (S/I), and anterior/posterior (A/P) directions. The systematic and random variations among the daily alignments were calculated. Margins to account for these shifts were estimated. The mean shifts and standard deviations along the R/L, S/I, and A/P directions were -0.11 +/- 3.80, 0.67 +/- 4.67, and 2.71+/- 6.31 mm for BAT localizations and -0.98 +/- 5.13, 0.27 +/- 3.35, and 1.00 +/- 4.22 mm for MVCT localizations, respectively. The systematic and random variations in daily shifts based on MVCT were generally smaller than those based on BAT, especially along the A/P direction. A t-test showed this difference to be statistically significant. The planning target volume margins in the A/P direction estimated to account for daily variations were 8.81 and 14.66 mm based on MVCT and BAT data, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the daily prostate movement pattern between the first few fractions and the remaining fractions. Dosimetric comparison of MVCT and BAT prostate alignments was performed for seven fractions from a patient. The degradation from the plan caused by the MVCT alignment is trivial, while that by BAT is substantial. The MVCT technique results in smaller variations in daily shifts than ultrasound imaging, indicating that MVCT is more reliable and precise for prostate localization. Ultrasound-based localization may overestimate the daily prostate motion, particularly in the A/P direction, negatively impacting prostate dose coverage and rectal sparing.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA.
authors.forename: Cheng
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Peng
authors.forename: Kristofer
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kainz
authors.forename: Colleen
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lawton
authors.forename: X Allen
authors.initials: XA
authors.lastname: Li
mesh_terms: D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009038:Motion; D011467:Prostate / Q000528:radiation effects; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D018787:Radiation Oncology / Q000379:methods; D011874:Radiometry; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000379:methods*; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000379:methods*