Changes in prostate orientation due to removal of a Foley catheter. Issue 4 (25th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Litzenberg, Dale W.; Muenz, Daniel G.; Archer, Paul G.; Jackson, William C.; Hamstra, Daniel A.; Hearn, Jason W.; Schipper, Matthew J.; Spratt, Daniel E.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 45:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 1369
• Page End: 1378
• Publication Date: 2018-03-25
• Subjects: motion management -- prostate -- treatment planning -- urethra; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.12830
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Investigate the impact on prostate orientation caused by use and removal of a Foley catheter, and the dosimetric impact on men prospectively treated with prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Twenty‐two men underwent a CT simulation with a Foley in place (FCT), followed immediately by a second treatment planning simulation without the Foley (TPCT). The change in prostate orientation was determined by rigid registration of three implanted transponders between FCT and TPCT and compared to measured orientation changes during treatment. The impact on treatment planning and delivery was investigated by analyzing the measured rotations during treatment relative to both CT scans, and introducing rotations of ±15° in the treatment plan to determine the maximum impact of allowed rotations. Results: Removing the Foley caused a statistically significant prostate rotation ( P < 0.0028) compared to normal biological motion in 60% of patients. The largest change in rotation due to removing a Foley occurs about the left–right axis (tilt) which has a standard deviation two to five times larger than changes in rotation about the Sup‐Inf (roll) and Ant‐Post (yaw) axes. The change in tilt due to removing a Foley for prone and supine patients was −1.1° ± 6.0° and 0.3° ± 7.4°, showing no strong directional bias. The average tilt during treatment was −1.6° ± 7.1° compared to the TPCT and would have been −2.0° ± 7.1° had the FCT been used as the reference. The TPCT was a better or equivalent representation of prostate tilt in 82% of patients, vs 50% had the FCT been used for treatment planning. However, 92.7% of fractions would still have been within the ±15° rotation limit if only the FCT were used for treatment planning. When rotated ±15°, urethra V105% = 38.85Gy < 20% was exceeded in 27% of the instances, and prostate (CTV) coverage was maintained above D95% > 37 Gy in all but one instance. Conclusions: Removing a Foley catheter can cause large prostate rotations. There does not appear to be a clear dosimetric benefit to obtaining the CT scan with a Foley catheter to define the urethra given the changes in urethral position from removing the Foley catheter. If urethral sparing is desired without the use of a Foley, utilization of an MRI to define the urethra may be necessary, or a pseudo‐urethral planning organ at risk volume (PRV) may be used to limit dosimetric hot spots.