SU‐E‐J‐145: Complete Study to Characterize the Effectiveness of Daily Endorectal Balloon (ERB) for Prostate Intrafraction Motion Management

K. Wang, N. Vapiwala, Curtiland Deville, J. Plastaras, R. Scheuermann, H. Lin, v. Bar ad, Z. Tochner, S. Both

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify intrafraction prostate motion between patient groups treated with and without daily endorectal balloon (ERB) employed during prostate radiotherapy and establish the effectiveness of the ERB. Methods: Real time intrafraction prostate motion from 29 non‐ERB (1061 sessions) and 30 ERB (1008 sessions) patients was evaluated based on three‐dimensional (3D), left, right, cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior displacements. The average percentage of time with 3D and unidirectional prostate displacements > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. The Kolmogorov‐Smirnov method was used to evaluate the intrafraction prostate motion pattern between both groups. Results: 3D motion >=1 cm was observed for the non‐ERB group only. The motion increased as a function of elapsed time for displacements > 2 to 8mm for the non‐ERB group and > 2 to 4 mm for the ERB group (p < 0.05). The percentage time distributions between the two groups were significantly different for motion > 5 mm (p < 0.05). The 3D internal margin (IM) covering 95% treatment time can be reduced from 5 to 3 mm (40% reduction) while the asymmetrical IM can be reduced from 3 to 2 mm (33% reduction) in cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior for 6 minutes treatment, when ERB is employed. Beyond 6 minutes, the 3D and cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior IMs can be reduced from 9, 4, 7, 7, and 8 to 5, 2, 5, 3, and 4 mm, respectively (up to 57% reduction). The calculated IMs apply to the worst case scenario patient as well. Conclusions: The ERB effectively reduces prostate motion and allows for smaller IMs. Therefore, daily ERB has the potential to further improve toxicity profiles in prostate radiotherapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3476
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Radiotherapy
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐J‐145 : Complete Study to Characterize the Effectiveness of Daily Endorectal Balloon (ERB) for Prostate Intrafraction Motion Management. / Wang, K.; Vapiwala, N.; Deville, Curtiland; Plastaras, J.; Scheuermann, R.; Lin, H.; ad, v. Bar; Tochner, Z.; Both, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011, p. 3476.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, K. ; Vapiwala, N. ; Deville, Curtiland ; Plastaras, J. ; Scheuermann, R. ; Lin, H. ; ad, v. Bar ; Tochner, Z. ; Both, S. / SU‐E‐J‐145 : Complete Study to Characterize the Effectiveness of Daily Endorectal Balloon (ERB) for Prostate Intrafraction Motion Management. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 3476.
@article{078a1a78aecc40fc84a2b51cc061c834,
title = "SU‐E‐J‐145: Complete Study to Characterize the Effectiveness of Daily Endorectal Balloon (ERB) for Prostate Intrafraction Motion Management",
abstract = "Purpose: To quantify intrafraction prostate motion between patient groups treated with and without daily endorectal balloon (ERB) employed during prostate radiotherapy and establish the effectiveness of the ERB. Methods: Real time intrafraction prostate motion from 29 non‐ERB (1061 sessions) and 30 ERB (1008 sessions) patients was evaluated based on three‐dimensional (3D), left, right, cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior displacements. The average percentage of time with 3D and unidirectional prostate displacements > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. The Kolmogorov‐Smirnov method was used to evaluate the intrafraction prostate motion pattern between both groups. Results: 3D motion >=1 cm was observed for the non‐ERB group only. The motion increased as a function of elapsed time for displacements > 2 to 8mm for the non‐ERB group and > 2 to 4 mm for the ERB group (p < 0.05). The percentage time distributions between the two groups were significantly different for motion > 5 mm (p < 0.05). The 3D internal margin (IM) covering 95{\%} treatment time can be reduced from 5 to 3 mm (40{\%} reduction) while the asymmetrical IM can be reduced from 3 to 2 mm (33{\%} reduction) in cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior for 6 minutes treatment, when ERB is employed. Beyond 6 minutes, the 3D and cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior IMs can be reduced from 9, 4, 7, 7, and 8 to 5, 2, 5, 3, and 4 mm, respectively (up to 57{\%} reduction). The calculated IMs apply to the worst case scenario patient as well. Conclusions: The ERB effectively reduces prostate motion and allows for smaller IMs. Therefore, daily ERB has the potential to further improve toxicity profiles in prostate radiotherapy.",
author = "K. Wang and N. Vapiwala and Curtiland Deville and J. Plastaras and R. Scheuermann and H. Lin and ad, {v. Bar} and Z. Tochner and S. Both",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3611913",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "3476",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐J‐145

T2 - Complete Study to Characterize the Effectiveness of Daily Endorectal Balloon (ERB) for Prostate Intrafraction Motion Management

AU - Wang, K.

AU - Vapiwala, N.

AU - Deville, Curtiland

AU - Plastaras, J.

AU - Scheuermann, R.

AU - Lin, H.

AU - ad, v. Bar

AU - Tochner, Z.

AU - Both, S.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: To quantify intrafraction prostate motion between patient groups treated with and without daily endorectal balloon (ERB) employed during prostate radiotherapy and establish the effectiveness of the ERB. Methods: Real time intrafraction prostate motion from 29 non‐ERB (1061 sessions) and 30 ERB (1008 sessions) patients was evaluated based on three‐dimensional (3D), left, right, cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior displacements. The average percentage of time with 3D and unidirectional prostate displacements > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. The Kolmogorov‐Smirnov method was used to evaluate the intrafraction prostate motion pattern between both groups. Results: 3D motion >=1 cm was observed for the non‐ERB group only. The motion increased as a function of elapsed time for displacements > 2 to 8mm for the non‐ERB group and > 2 to 4 mm for the ERB group (p < 0.05). The percentage time distributions between the two groups were significantly different for motion > 5 mm (p < 0.05). The 3D internal margin (IM) covering 95% treatment time can be reduced from 5 to 3 mm (40% reduction) while the asymmetrical IM can be reduced from 3 to 2 mm (33% reduction) in cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior for 6 minutes treatment, when ERB is employed. Beyond 6 minutes, the 3D and cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior IMs can be reduced from 9, 4, 7, 7, and 8 to 5, 2, 5, 3, and 4 mm, respectively (up to 57% reduction). The calculated IMs apply to the worst case scenario patient as well. Conclusions: The ERB effectively reduces prostate motion and allows for smaller IMs. Therefore, daily ERB has the potential to further improve toxicity profiles in prostate radiotherapy.

AB - Purpose: To quantify intrafraction prostate motion between patient groups treated with and without daily endorectal balloon (ERB) employed during prostate radiotherapy and establish the effectiveness of the ERB. Methods: Real time intrafraction prostate motion from 29 non‐ERB (1061 sessions) and 30 ERB (1008 sessions) patients was evaluated based on three‐dimensional (3D), left, right, cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior displacements. The average percentage of time with 3D and unidirectional prostate displacements > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. The Kolmogorov‐Smirnov method was used to evaluate the intrafraction prostate motion pattern between both groups. Results: 3D motion >=1 cm was observed for the non‐ERB group only. The motion increased as a function of elapsed time for displacements > 2 to 8mm for the non‐ERB group and > 2 to 4 mm for the ERB group (p < 0.05). The percentage time distributions between the two groups were significantly different for motion > 5 mm (p < 0.05). The 3D internal margin (IM) covering 95% treatment time can be reduced from 5 to 3 mm (40% reduction) while the asymmetrical IM can be reduced from 3 to 2 mm (33% reduction) in cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior for 6 minutes treatment, when ERB is employed. Beyond 6 minutes, the 3D and cranial, caudal, anterior, and posterior IMs can be reduced from 9, 4, 7, 7, and 8 to 5, 2, 5, 3, and 4 mm, respectively (up to 57% reduction). The calculated IMs apply to the worst case scenario patient as well. Conclusions: The ERB effectively reduces prostate motion and allows for smaller IMs. Therefore, daily ERB has the potential to further improve toxicity profiles in prostate radiotherapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024779893&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024779893&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3611913

DO - 10.1118/1.3611913

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024779893

VL - 38

SP - 3476

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -