Intrafraction prostate translations and rotations during hypofractionated robotic radiation surgery: Dosimetric impact of correction strategies and margins

Purpose To investigate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and the effect of robot correction strategies for hypofractionated CyberKnife treatments with a simultaneously integrated boost. Methods and Materials A total of 548 real-time prostate motion tracks from 17 patients were available for dosimetric simulations of CyberKnife treatments, in which various correction strategies were included. Fixed time intervals between imaging/correction (15, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) were simulated, as well as adaptive timing (ie, the time interval reduced from 60 to 15 seconds in case prostate motion exceeded 3 mm or 2 in consecutive images). The simulated extent of robot corrections was also varied: no corrections, translational corrections only, and translational corrections combined with rotational corrections up to 5, 10, and perfect rotational correction. The correction strategies were evaluated for treatment plans with a 0-mm or 3-mm margin around the clinical target volume (CTV). We recorded CTV coverage (V100%) and dose-volume parameters of the peripheral zone (boost), rectum, bladder, and urethra. Results Planned dose parameters were increasingly preserved with larger extents of robot corrections. A time interval between corrections of 60 to 180 seconds provided optimal preservation of CTV coverage. To achieve 98% CTV coverage in 98% of the treatments, translational and rotational corrections up to 10 were required for the 0-mm margin plans, whereas translational and rotational corrections up to 5 were required for the 3-mm margin plans. Rectum and bladder were spared considerably better in the 0-mm margin plans. Adaptive timing did not improve delivered dose. Conclusions Intrafraction prostate motion substantially affected the delivered dose but was compensated for effectively by robot corrections using a time interval of 60 to 180 seconds. A 0-mm margin required larger extents of additional rotational corrections than a 3-mm margin but resulted in lower doses to rectum and bladder.

• View at Publisher
• View at Pubmed
• View at Scopus
• View at Web of Science