Adaptive Imaging Versus Periodic Surveillance for Intrafraction Motion Management During Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy. (19th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ma, Xiangyu; Yan, Huagang; Nath, Ravinder; Chen, Zhe; Li, Haiyun; Liu, Wu
• Is Part Of: Technology in cancer research & treatment. Volume 18(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-07-19
• Subjects: intrafraction motion management -- portal imaging -- on-board kV imaging -- image-guided radiation therapy -- imaging dose; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1177/1533033819844489
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1533-0346

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the benefits of adaptive imaging with automatic correction compared to periodic surveillance strategies with either manual or automatic correction. Methods: Using Calypso trajectories from 54 patients with prostate cancer at 2 institutions, we simulated 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy and dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy with periodic imaging at various frequencies and with continuous adaptive imaging, respectively. With manual/automatic correction, we assumed there was a 30/1 second delay after imaging to determine and apply couch shift. For adaptive imaging, real-time "dose-free" cine-MV images during beam delivery are used in conjunction with online-updated motion pattern information to estimate 3D displacement. Simultaneous MV-kV imaging is only used to confirm the estimated overthreshold motion and calculate couch shift, hence very low additional patient dose from kV imaging. Results: Without intrafraction intervention, the prostates could on average have moved out of a 3-mm margin for ∼20% of the beam-on time after setup imaging in current clinical situation. If the time interval from the setup imaging to beam-on can be reduced to only 30 seconds, the mean over-3 mm percentage can be reduced to ∼7%. For intensity-modulated radiation therapy simulation, with manual correction, 110 and 70 seconds imaging periods both reduced the mean over-3 mm time to ∼4%. Automatic correction could give another 1% to 2% improvement. However, with either manual or automatic correction, the maximum patient-specific over-3 mm time was still relatively high (from 6.4% to 12.6%) and those patients are actually clinically most important. In contrast, adaptive imaging with automatic intervention significantly reduced the mean percentage to 0.6% and the maximum to 2.7% and averagely only ∼1 kV image and ∼1 couch shift were needed per fraction. The results of volumetric-modulated arc therapy simulation show a similar trend to that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Conclusions: Adaptive continuous monitoring with automatic motion compensation is more beneficial than periodic imaging surveillance at similar or even less imaging dose.