Ultrasound-based stereotactic guidance in prostate cancer--quantification of organ motion and set-up errors in external beam radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVE

A mobile transabdominal ultrasound-based targeting system (BAT(R)) has been developed which can stereotactically localize the position of the prostate each treatment day and directly integrate this information into the treatment planning system. Daily target verification facilitates a marked reduction in planning treatment margins by correcting potential organ-motion and set-up errors. Previous studies have been performed to establish the precision of ultrasound localization. This report quantifies the magnitude of the patient isocenter shift parameters encountered during clinical implementation of this system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After five weeks of conformal external beam radiation therapy, 54 patients underwent a second CT simulation. Prostate-only fields based on this scan were created with no PTV margin beyond the CTV. For each of the final conedown treatments (2-4 fractions), patients underwent ultrasound-based stereotactic prostate localization at the treatment machine. The portable system, which electronically imports the CT simulation target-contour and isocenter information, is situated adjacent to the treatment couch. Transverse and sagittal suprapubic ultrasound images are captured, and the system electronically couples this data to the baseline isocenter. The CT contours are maneuvered in three dimensions by a touch-screen menu to visually overlay the ultrasound images. The system then displays the three-dimensional (3D) couch shifts required to produce field alignment.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-nine daily ultrasound prostate position shifts were recorded for 54 patients. The isocenter field misalignment between the baseline CT and ultrasound ranged from -26.8 to 33.8 mm in the anterior/posterior (A/P) dimension, -10.2 to 30.9 mm in the lateral dimension, and -24.6 to 9.0 mm in the superior/inferior (S/I) dimension. The corresponding directed average disagreements were -3.0 mm (SD 8.3 mm) A/P, 1.86 mm (SD 5.7 mm) lateral, and -2.6 mm (SD 6.5 mm) S/I. The magnitudes of undirected misalignments were frequently larger than 5 mm (51% of A/P, 31% of lateral, and 35% of superior measurements) and oftentimes larger than 10 mm (21% of A/P, 7% of lateral, and 12% of superior measurements).

CONCLUSIONS

Organ motion and set-up uncertainties limit optimization of 3D treatment planning by expanding the width of PTV margins required to ensure target coverage. Transabdominal ultrasound-based stereotactic guidance is a safe and direct method for correcting patient positioning. Our experience with the BAT system in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients revealed that substantial daily isocenter corrections were encountered in a large percentage of cases. This data would suggest that daily clinical isocenter misalignments are greater than would be expected from published data on organ motion and set-up variations encountered in the study setting.