Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2013,” CA Cancer J. Clin. 63, 1130 (2013).
2. I. M. Thompson et al., “Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves suvival: Long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial,” J. Urol. 181, 956962 (2009).
3. H. Geinitz et al., “Outcome after conformal salvage radiotherapy in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen levels after radical prostatectomy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 82, 19301937 (2012).
4. X. A. Li et al., “Interfractional variations in patient setup and anatomic change assessed by daily computed tomography,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 68, 581591 (2007).
5. P. Ost et al., “Analysis of prostate bed motion using daily cone-beam computed tomography during postprostatectomy radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 79, 188194 (2011).
6. K. Huang et al., “Inter- and intrafractional uncertainty in prostate bed Image-guided radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 84, 402407 (2012).
7. D. Verellen et al., “Innovations in image-guided radiotherapy,” Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 949960 (2007).
8. D. Yan et al., “An off-line strategy for constructing a patient-specific planning target volume in adaptive treatment process for prostate cancer,”Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 48, 289302 (2000).
9. L. E. Court et al., “An automatic CT-guided adaptive radiation therapy technique by online modification of multileaf collimator leaf positions for prostate cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 62, 154163 (2005).
10. R. Mohan et al., “Use of deformed intensity distributions for on-line modification of image-guided IMRT to account for interfractional anatomic changes,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 61, 12581266 (2005).
11. E. Ludlum et al., “An Algorithm for shifting MLC shape to adjust for daily prostate movement during concurrent treatment with pelvic lymph nodes,” Med. Phys. 34, 47504756 (2007).
12. E. E. Ahunbay et al., “An on-line re-planning scheme for inter-fractional variations,” Med. Phys. 35, 36073615 (2008).
13. E. E. Ahunbay et al., “An Online adaptive replanning method for prostate radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 77, 15611572 (2010).
14. E. E. Ahunbay et al., “An online replanning method for head and neck adaptive radiotherapyMed. Phys. 36, 47764790 (2009).
15. F. Liu et al., “Characterization and management of interfractional anatomic changes for pancreatic cancer radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol. Phys. 83, e423e429 (2012).
16. A. Pollack et al., “A phase III trial of short term androgen deprivation with pelvic lymph node or prostate bed only radiotherapy (SPPORT) in prostate cancer patients with a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy (RTOG 0534).”
17. J. M. Michalski et al., “Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate Cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 76, 361368 (2010).
18. M. La Macchia et al., “Systematic evaluation of three different commercial software solutions for automatic segmentation for adaptive therapy in head-and-neck, prostate and pleural cancer,” Radiat. Oncol. 7, 160 (2012).
19. F. Liu et al., “Dosimetric benefits of online adaptive replanning for radiotherapy of prostate plus seminal vesicle: Evaluation based on cumulative dose,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 84, S806S807 (2012).
20. C. Peng et al., “Characterzing interfraction variations and their dosimetric effects in prostate cancer radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 79, 909914 (2011).
21. X. Li et al., “A full automated method for CT-on-Rails-Guided online adaptive planning for prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 86, 835841 (2013).
22. P. Paluska et al., “Utilization of cone-beam CT for reconstruction of dose distribution delivered in image-guided radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma: Bony landmark setup compared to fiducial markers setup,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14, 99112 (2013).
23. C. Peng et al., “Validation of an online replanning technique for prostate adaptive radiotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 36593668 (2011).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



To quantify interfractional anatomic variations and limitations of the current practice of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for prostate-bed patients and to study dosimetric benefits of an online adaptive replanning scheme that addresses the interfractional variations.

Contours for the targets and organs at risk (OARs) from daily diagnostic-quality CTs acquired with in-room CT (CTVision, Siemens) were generated by populating the planning contours using an autosegmentation tool based on deformable registration (ABAS, Elekta) with manual editing for ten prostate-bed patients treated with postoperative daily CT-guided IMRT. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) obtained by maximizing the overlap of contours for a structure between the daily and plan contours was used to quantify the organ deformation between the plan and daily CTs. Three interfractional-variation-correction schemes, the current standard practice of IGRT repositioning, a previously developed online adaptive RT (ART), and the full reoptimization, were applied to these daily CTs and a number of dose-volume quantities for the targets and organs at risk were compared for their effectiveness to account for the interfractional variations.

Large interfractional organ deformations in prostate-bed irradiation were seen. The mean DSCs for CTV, rectum, and bladder were 86.6 ± 5.1% (range from 61% to 97%), 77.3% ± 7.4% (range from 55% to 90%), and 75.4% ± 11.2% (range from 46% to 96%), respectively. The fractional and cumulative dose-volume quantities for CTV and PTV: V100 (volume received at least 100% prescription dose), and rectum and bladder: V and V (volume received at least 45 or 60 Gy), were compared for the repositioning, adaptive, reoptimization, and original plans. The fractional and cumulative dosimetric results were nearly the same. The average cumulative CTV V100 were 88.0%, 98.4%, 99.2%, and 99.3% for the IGRT, ART, reoptimization, and original plans, respectively. The corresponding rectal V (V) were 58.7% (27.3%), 48.1% (20.7%), 43.8% (16.1%), and 44.9% (16.8%). The results for bladder were comparable among three schemes. Paired two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed and it was found that ART and reoptimization provide better target coverage and better OAR sparing, especially rectum sparing.

The interfractional organ motions and deformations during prostate-bed irradiation are significant. The online adaptive replanning scheme is capable of effectively addressing the large organ deformation, resulting in cumulative doses equivalent to those originally planned.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd