Premium
SU‐E‐J‐17: Intra‐Fractional Prostate Movement Correction During Treatment Delivery Period for Prostate Cancer Using the Intra‐Fractional Orthogonal KV‐MV Image Pairs
Author(s) -
Zhang J,
Azawi S,
ChoLim J,
Wei R,
Williams R,
Frank E
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4924105
Subject(s) - image guided radiation therapy , prostate , prostate cancer , imaging phantom , medicine , nuclear medicine , rotation (mathematics) , computer science , medical imaging , artificial intelligence , cancer
Purpose: To evaluate the intra‐fractional prostate movement range during the beam delivery and implement new IGRT method to correct the prostate movement during the hypofractionated prostate treatment delivery. Methods: To evaluate the prostate internal motion range during the beam delivery, 11 conventional treatments were utilized. Two‐arc RapidArc plans were used for the treatment delivery. Orthogonal KV imaging is performed in the middle of the treatment to correct intra‐fractional prostate movement. However, it takes gantry‐mounted on‐board imaging system relative long time to finish the orthogonal KV imaging because of gantry rotation. To avoid gantry movement and accelerate the IGRT processing time, orthogonal KV‐MV image pair is tested using the OBI daily QA Cube phantom. Results: The average prostate movement between two orthogonal KV image pairs was 0.38cm (0.20cm ∼ 0.85cm). And the interval time between them was 6.71 min (4.64min ∼ 9.22 min). 2‐arc beam delivery time is within 3 minutes for conventional RapidArc treatment delivery. Hypofractionated treatment or SBRT need 4 partial arc and possible non‐coplanar technology, which need much longer beam delivery time. Therefore prostate movement might be larger. New orthogonal KV‐MV image pair is a new method to correct the prostate movement in the middle of the beam delivery if real time tracking method is not available. Orthogonal KV‐MV image pair doesn't need gantry rotation. Images were acquired quickly which minimized possible new prostate movement. Therefore orthogonal KV‐MV image pair is feasible for IGRT. Conclusion: Hypofractionated prostate treatment with less PTV margin always needs longer beam delivery time. Therefore prostate movement correction during the treatment delivery is critical. Orthogonal KV‐MV imaging pair is efficient and accurate to correct the prostate movement during treatment beam delivery. Due to limited fraction number and high dose per fraction, the MV imaging dose is negligible.