Purpose: The use of escalated radiation doses to improve local control in conformal radiotherapy of prostatic cancer is becoming the focus of many centers. There are, however, increased side effects associated with increased radiotherapy doses that are believed to be dependent on the volume of normal tissue irradiated. For this reason, accurate patient positioning, CT planning with 3D reconstruction of volumes of interest, clear definition of treatment margins and verification of treatment fields are necessary components of the quality control for these procedures. In this study electronic portal images are used to (a) evaluate the magnitude and effect of the setup errors encountered in patient positioning techniques, and (b) verify the multileaf collimator (MLC) field patterns for each of the treatment fields.
Methods and materials: The Phase I volume, with a planning target volume (PTV) composed of the gross tumour volume (GTV) plus a 1.5 cm margin is treated conformally with a three-field plan (usually an anterior field and two lateral or oblique fields). A Phase II, with no margin around the GTV, is treated using two lateral and four oblique fields. Portal images are acquired and compared to digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) and/or simulator films during Phase I to assess the systematic (CT planning or simulator to treatment error) and the daily random errors. The match results from these images are used to correct for the systematic errors, if necessary, and to monitor the time trends and effectiveness of patient imobilization systems used during the Phase I treatment course. For the Phase II, portal images of an anterior and lateral field (larger than the treatment fields) matched to DRRs (or simulator images) are used to verify the isocenter position 1 week before start of Phase II. The Portal images are acquired for all the treatment fields on the first day to verify the MLC field patterns and archived for records. The final distribution of the setup errors was used to calculate modified dose-volume histograms (DVHs). This procedure was carried out on 36 prostate cancer patients, 12 with vacuum-molded (VacFix) bags for immobilization and 24 with no immobilization.
Results: The systematic errors can be visualized and corrected for before the doses are increased above the conventional levels. The requirement for correction of these errors (e.g., 2.5 mm AP shift) was demonstrated, using DVHs, in the observed 10% increase in rectal volume receiving at least 60 Gy. The random (daily) errors observed showed the need for patient fixation devices when treating with reduced margins. The percentage of fields with displacements of < or = 5.0 mm increased from 82 to 96% with the use of VacFix bags. The rotation of the pelvis is also minimized when the bags are used, with over 95% of the fields with rotations of < or = 2.0 degrees compared to 85% without. Currently, a combination of VacFix and thermoplastic casts is being investigated.
Conclusion: The systematic errors can easily be identified and corrected for in the early stages of the Phase I treatment course. The time trends observed during the course of Phase I in conjunction with the isocenter verification at the start of Phase II give good prediction of the accuracy of the setup during Phase II, where visibility of identifiable structures is reduced in the small fields. The acquisition and inspection of the portal images for the small Phase I fields has been found to be an effective way of keeping a record of the MLC field patterns used. Incorporation of the distribution of the setup errors into the planning system also gives a clearer picture of how the prescribed dose was delivered. This information can be useful in dose-escalation studies in determining the relationship between the local control or morbidity rates and prescribed dose.