FCCC LOGO Faculty Publications
Wang L , Jacob R , Chen L , Ma C , Movsas B , Feigenberg S , Konski A
Stereotactic IMRT for prostate cancer: setup accuracy of a new stereotactic body localization system
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2004 ;5(2) :18-28
PMID: 15738910   
Back to previous list
The purpose of this work is to prospectively assess the setup accuracy that can be achieved with a stereotactic body localizer (SBL) in immobilizing patients for stereotactic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. By quantifying this important factor and target mobility in the SBL, we expect to provide a guideline for selecting planning target volume margins for stereotactic treatment planning. We analyzed data from 40 computed tomography (CT) studies (with slice thickness of 3 mm) involving 10 patients with prostate cancer. Each patient had four sets of CT scans during the course of radiotherapy. For the purpose of this study, all four sets of CT scans were obtained with the patients immobilized in a customized body pillow formed by vacuum suction. Unlike other immobilization devices, this system consists not only of a customized body pillow, but also of a fixation sheet used to suppress patient respiratory motion, a stereotactic body frame to provide stereotaxy, and a carbon fiber base board to which both the body cushion and the frame are affixed. We identified four bony landmarks and measured their coordinates in the stereotactic body frame on each set of CT scans. The displacements of the bony landmarks from their corresponding positions on the simulation scan (first CT scan) were analyzed in three dimensions in terms of overall, systematic, and random categories. The initial planned isocenter was also marked on the patients' skin with fiducials for each CT study. The distance from each bony landmark to the fiducial-based isocenter was measured and compared among the four sets of CT scans. The deviations in distances were also compared to those measured from the landmarks to the stereotactic frame center, in order to determine the effectiveness of the rigid body frame in positioning patients with prostate cancer. Target inter-fraction motion in this system was also studied for five patients by measuring the deviations in distances from the target geometric center to the bony landmarks. Our results showed that the overall setup accuracy had standard deviations (SDs) of 2.58 mm, 2.41 mm, and 3.51 mm in lateral (LAT), anterior-posterior(AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. The random component had SDs of 1.72 mm, 2.06 mm, and 2.79 mm, and the systematic component showed SDs of 0.92 mm, -0.27 mm, and 0.90 mm in these three directions. In terms of three-dimensional vector, the mean displacement over 116 measurements was 3.0 mm with an SD of 1.29 mm. Compared to the rigid reference, the skin-mark-based reference was less reliable for patient repositioning in terms of reproducing known bony landmark positions. The mean target mobility relative to the bony landmarks was 2.22 +/- 3.45 mm, 0.17 +/- 1.11 mm, and 0.11 +/- 2.69 mm in the AP, LAT, and SI directions, respectively. In conclusion, the body immobilization system has the ability to immobilize prostate cancer patients with satisfactory setup accuracy for fractionated extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy. A rigid frame system serves as a reliable alignment reference in terms of repositioning patients into the planning position, while skin-based reference showed larger deviations in repositioning patients.
United States Clinical Trial Journal Article