Cine-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Intrafraction Motion for Prostate Cancer Patients Supine or Prone With and Without a Rectal Balloon

Boca Radiation Oncology Associates, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
American journal of clinical oncology (Impact Factor: 2.61). 08/2009; 33(1):11-6. DOI: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31819fdf7c
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Determine prostate intrafraction motion with Cine-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and deformable registration.
A total of 68 cine-MRI studies were done in 17 different series with 4 scans per series in 7 patients. In without rectal balloon (WORB) scans, 100 mL of water was infused in the rectum. Each series consisted of supine and prone, with a rectal balloon (WRB) and WORB. Each scan was performed over 4 minutes. Automatic deformable registration software developed by View Ray, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio was employed to segment the prostate for each cine-MRI image. A time-based analysis was done for the different positions and the use of the rectal balloon.
The variation/standard deviation of the prostate position during 240 seconds was: supine WRB: 0.55 mm, WORB: 1.2 mm, and prone WRB: 1.48 mm, WORB: 2.15 mm (P < 0.001). A strong relationship was observed between time and prostate motion. For the initial 120 s the standard deviation was smaller than for the second 120 s supine WRB 0.54 mm versus 1.37 mm; supine WORB 0.61 mm versus 1.70 mm; prone WRB 0.85 mm versus 1.85 mm; and prone WORB 1.60 mm versus 2.56 mm. The probabilities for prostate staying within +/-2 mm to its initial position are: 94.8% supine WRB; 91.5% supine WORB; 92.3% prone WRB; 79.2% prone WORB.
Intrafraction prostate motion was found dependent on time, patient position, and the use of a rectal balloon. Relatively stable positions can be obtained for 4 minutes or less especially in the supine position with a rectal balloon.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interference suppression schemes for direct-sequence spread-spectrum (DS/SS) code division multiple access (CDMA) systems using the minimum mean squared error (MMSE) criterion are considered. When compared to other interference suppression schemes, such as maximum-likelihood decoding, this criterion has the advantage of being amenable to adaptive implementations that do not require knowledge of the interference parameters, such as their relative strengths and spreading sequences. These schemes are shown to be near-far resistant to varying degrees, depending on their complexity. That is, the error probability remains relatively low no matter how strong the interference. Numerical results showing error probability vs. interference power demonstrate that the proposed schemes offer substantial performance gains relative to the matched filter receiver
    Global Telecommunications Conference, 1992. Conference Record., GLOBECOM '92. Communication for Global Users., IEEE; 01/1993
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the present study, we have presented and validated a plastic scintillation detector (PSD) system designed for real-time multiprobe in vivo measurements. The PSDs were built with a dose-sensitive volume of 0.4 mm(3). The PSDs were assembled into modular detector patches, each containing five closely packed PSDs. Continuous dose readings were performed every 150 ms, with a gap between consecutive readings of <0.3 ms. We first studied the effect of electron multiplication. We then assessed system performance in acrylic and anthropomorphic pelvic phantoms. The PSDs were compatible with clinical rectal balloons and were easily inserted into the anthropomorphic phantom. With an electron multiplication average gain factor of 40, a twofold increase in the signal/noise ratio was observed, making near real-time dosimetry feasible. Under calibration conditions, the PSDs agreed with the ion chamber measurements to 0.08%. Precision, evaluated as a function of the total dose delivered, ranged from 2.3% at 2 cGy to 0.4% at 200 cGy. Real-time PSD measurements are highly accurate and precise. These PSDs can be mounted onto rectal balloons, transforming these clinical devices into in vivo dose detectors without modifying current clinical practice. Real-time monitoring of the dose delivered near the rectum during prostate radiotherapy should help radiation oncologists protect this sensitive normal structure.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 03/2010; 78(1):280-7. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.025 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To prospectively investigate intrafraction prostate motion during radiofrequency-guided prostate radiotherapy with implanted electromagnetic transponders when daily endorectal balloon (ERB) is used. Intrafraction prostate motion from 24 patients in 787 treatment sessions was evaluated based on three-dimensional (3D), lateral, cranial-caudal (CC), and anterior-posterior (AP) displacements. The mean percentage of time with 3D, lateral, CC, and AP prostate displacements>2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mm in 1 minute intervals was calculated for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. Correlation between the mean percentage time with 3D prostate displacement>3 mm vs. treatment week was investigated. The percentage of time with 3D prostate movement>2, 3, and 4 mm increased with elapsed treatment time (p<0.05). Prostate movement>5 mm was independent of elapsed treatment time (p=0.11). The overall mean time with prostate excursions>3 mm was 5%. Directional analysis showed negligible lateral prostate motion; AP and CC motion were comparable. The fraction of time with 3D prostate movement>3 mm did not depend on treatment week of (p>0.05) over a 4-minute mean treatment time. Daily endorectal balloon consistently stabilizes the prostate, preventing clinically significant displacement (>5 mm). A 3-mm internal margin may sufficiently account for 95% of intrafraction prostate movement for up to 6 minutes of treatment time. Directional analysis suggests that the lateral internal margin could be further reduced to 2 mm.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 10/2010; 81(5):1302-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.052 · 4.18 Impact Factor