Multiple two-dimensional versus three-dimensional PTV definition in treatment planning for conformal radiotherapy.

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the need for a fully three-dimensional (3D) computerized expansion of the gross tumour volume (GTV) or clinical target volume (CTV), as delineated by the radiation oncologist on CT slices, to obtain the proper planning target volume (PTV) for treatment planning according to the ICRU-50 recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 10 prostate cancer patients two PTVs have been determined by expansion of the GTV with a 1.5 cm margin, i.e. a 3D PTV and a multiple 2D PTV. The former was obtained by automatically adding the margin while accounting in 3D for GTV contour differences in neighbouring slices. The latter was generated by automatically adding the 1.5 cm margin to the GTV in each CT slice separately; the resulting PTV is a computer simulation of the PTV that a radiation oncologist would obtain with (the still common) manual contouring in CT slices. For each patient the two PTVs were compared to assess the deviations of the multiple 2D PTV from the 3D PTV. For both PTVs conformal plans were designed using a three-field technique with fixed block margins. For each patient dose-volume histograms and tumour control probabilities (TCPs) of the (correct) 3D PTV were calculated, both for the plan designed for this PTV and for the treatment plan based on the (deviating) 2D PTV.

RESULTS

Depending on the shape of the GTV, multiple 2D PTV generation could locally result in a 1 cm underestimation of the GTV-to-PTV margin. The deviations occurred predominantly in the cranio-caudal direction at locations where the GTV contour shape varies significantly from slice to slice. This could lead to serious underdosage and to a TCP decrease of up to 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

A full 3D GTV-to-PTV expansion should be applied in conformal radiotherapy to avoid underdosage.