title: Prostate rotation detected from implanted markers can affect dose coverage and cannot be simply dismissed.
abstract: With implanted markers, daily prostate displacements can be automatically detected with six degrees of freedom. The reported magnitudes of the rotations, however, are often greater than the typical range of a six-degree treatment couch. The purpose of this study is to quantify geometric and dosimetric effects if the prostate rotations are not corrected (ROT_NC) and if they can be compensated with translational shifts (ROT_C). Forty-three kilovoltage cone-beam CTs (KV-CBCT) with implanted markers from five patients were available for this retrospective study. On each KV-CBCT, the prostate, bladder, and rectum were manually contoured by a physician. The prostate contours from the planning CT and CBCT were aligned manually to achieve the best overlaps. This contour registration served as the benchmark method for comparison with two marker registration methods: (a) using six degrees of freedom, but rotations were not corrected (ROT_NC); and (b) using three degrees of freedom while compensating rotations into the translational shifts (ROT_C). The center of mass distance (CMD) and overlap index (OI) were used to evaluate these two methods. The dosimetric effects were also analyzed by comparing the dose coverage of the prostate clinical target volume (CTV) in relation to the planning margins. According to our analysis, the detected rotations dominated in the left-right axis with systematic and random components of 4.6° and 4.1°, respectively. When the rotation angles were greater than 10°, the differences in CMD between the two registrations were greater than 5 mm in 85.7% of these fractions; when the rotation angles were greater than 6°, the differences of CMD were greater than 4 mm in 61.1% of these fractions. With 6 mm/4 mm posterior planning margins, the average difference between the dose to 99% (D99) of the prostate in CBCTs and the planning D99 of the prostate was -8.0 ± 12.3% for the ROT_NC registration, and -3.6 ± 9.0% for the ROT_C registration (p = 0.01). When the planning margin decreased to 4 mm/2 mm posterior, the average difference in D99 of the prostate was -22.0 ± 16.2% and -15.1 ± 15.2% for the ROT_NC and ROT_C methods, respectively (p &lt; 0.05). In conclusion, prostate rotation cannot be simply dismissed, and the impact of the rotational errors depends on the distance between the isocenter and the centroid of implanted markers and the rotation angle.
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
authors: Qingyang
authors: Q
authors: Shang
authors: Lawrence J
authors: LJ
authors: Sheplan Olsen
authors: Kevin
authors: K
authors: Stephans
authors: Rahul
authors: R
authors: Tendulkar
authors: Ping
authors: P
authors: Xia
mesh_terms: D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; D057918:Fiducial Markers; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011467:Prostate / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D012007:Rectum / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012399:Rotation; D001743:Urinary Bladder / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Aug 7;56(15):5045-62
references: 21772083
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Aug 1;56(5):1248-51
references: 12873668
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Aug 1;74(5):1600-8
references: 19473778
references: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Sep;80(3):371-3
references: 16914219
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Dec 1;69(5):1608-17
references: 17919845
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):1160-7
references: 21035957
references: Med Dosim. 2012 Winter;37(4):396-400
references: 22534137
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 1;56(3):862-6
references: 12788196
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Dec 1;75(5):1613-20
references: 19836164
references: Med Dosim. 2011 Summer;36(2):188-94
references: 21540013
references: Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004 Jan;14(1):52-64
references: 14752733
references: Med Dosim. 2008 Autumn;33(3):199-205
references: 18674684
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 1;52(3):699-703
references: 11849792
references: Radiother Oncol. 1999 Jun;51(3):237-48
references: 10435819
references: Radiother Oncol. 2003 Jun;67(3):295-302
references: 12865177
references: J Cancer Res Ther. 2010 Apr-Jun;6(2):172-8
references: 20622364
references: Radiother Oncol. 2005 Feb;74(2):177-85
references: 15734206
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Jan 15;34(2):451-8
references: 8567348
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Dec 1;33(5):1311-20
references: 7493856
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 1;65(3):934-42
references: 16751076
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Oct 21;51(20):5321-31
references: 17019041
references: Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jul;88(1):156-62
references: 18439697
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1;65(2):528-34
references: 16690435
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Jan 15;37(2):435-44
references: 9069319
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e545-53
references: 22014957
references: Radiother Oncol. 2007 Nov;85(2):247-50
references: 17935807
references: Radiother Oncol. 2007 Jan;82(1):38-45
references: 17141903
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Mar 15;46(5):1281-90
references: 10725642
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Aug 1;62(5):1291-6
references: 16029784
references: Med Dosim. 2005 Fall;30(3):155-61
references: 16112467
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Apr 1;64(5):1596-609
references: 16580509
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 May 1;50(1):265-78
references: 11316572
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1624-32
references: 22209149
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):75-82
references: 17869445
references: Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):168-74
references: 17499870
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Apr 21;55(8):2221-34
references: 20354283
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Sep 1;60(1):30-9
references: 15337537
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 May 1;71(1):41-50
references: 17996391