Advertisement

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 190, Issue 5, pp 467–471 | Cite as

Using fiducial markers in the prostate bed in postprostatectomy external beam radiation therapy improves accuracy over surgical clips

  • I. Fortin
  • J.-F. Carrier
  • M.-C. Beauchemin
  • D. Béliveau-Nadeau
  • G. Delouya
  • D. TausskyEmail author
Original article

Abstract

Background and purpose

The purpose of this work was to assess the stability of fiducial markers in the prostate bed and compared their use to surgical clips.

Patients and methods

In this study, 3–4 gold fiducial markers were transrectally implanted in the prostate bed of 14 patients. The stability of the fiducial markers position (fiducial markers fixity) over an EBRT course was assessed. Furthermore, the advantages of the fiducial markers compared to the surgical clips were assessed and the interobserver variation between the two technologies was compared.

Results

The mean fiducial marker migration during a course of EBRT was small with 1.2 mm (SD ± 0.8 mm). Compared to fiducial markers, the matches with surgical clips were mismatched ≥ 2 mm in 68 % of treatments. This discrepancy of > 2 mm was on average 3.7 ± 1.3 mm. There was less interobserver variability for matching of fiducial markers (0.8 ± 0.7 mm) than for surgical clips (2.0 ± 1.6 mm).

Conclusion

Fiducial markers showed less interobserver variability in matching and less variation in position than surgical clips. Fiducial markers could ultimately help in reducing treatment margins.

Keywords

Toxicity Organs at risk Treatment margins Reference standards Radiotherapy, image-guided 

Goldmarker im Prostatabett bei der Strahlenbehandlung nach Prostatektomie: erhöhte Genauigkeit im Vergleich zu Operationsklammern

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Ziel

Es wurde die Stabilität von Goldmarkern im Prostatabett untersucht und ihr Nutzen mit dem von Operationsklammern verglichen.

Patienten und Methoden

Bei 14 untersuchten Patienten wurden 3–4 Goldmarker transrektal in das Prostatabett eingesetzt. Während der Bestrahlung wurde die Stabilität der Position der Marker gemessen. Ferner wurden die Vorteile der Goldmarker mit denen der Operationsklammern sowie die Interbeobachtervariation bei beiden verglichen.

Ergebnisse

Die Migration der Goldmarker im Prostatabett war während der Bestrahlung mit einem Durschnitt von 1,2 mm (Standardabweichung ± 0,8 mm) klein. Wenn man das „matching“ von Operationsklammern mit dem „matching“ von Goldmarkern vergleicht, so gab es in 68 % der Bestrahlungen eine Diskrepanz von > 2 mm (durchschnittlich 3,7 ± 1,3 mm). Die Interbeobachtervariation war für den Gebrauch von Goldmarkern (0,8 ± 0,7 mm) im Vergleich zu Operationsklammern (2,0 ± 1,6 mm) geringer.

Schlussfolgerung

Goldmarker waren zuverlässiger als Operationsklammern, da sie eine kleinere Variabilität beim „matching“ zeigten. Nach Ansicht der Autoren können Goldmarker helfen, den Sicherheitsrand zu verringern.

Schlüsselwörter

Toxizität Gefährdete Organe Bestrahlungsfeld Referenzstandards Bildgestützte Radiotherapie 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Genevieve Robitaille and Sara Dufort-Venne for their work and Dr. David Roberge for help with the preparation of the manuscript

Compliance with ethicalguidelines

Conflict of interest

I. Fortin, J. F. Carrier, M. C. Beauchemin, D. Béliveau-Nadeau, G. Delouya, and D. Taussky state that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352:1977–1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS et al (2004) The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol 171:1393–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG et al (2004) Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 172:910–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Touijer K, Secin FP, Cronin AM et al (2009) Oncologic outcome after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 10 years of experience. Eur Urol 55:1014–1019PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolla M, Poppel H van, Collette L et al (2005) Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 366:572–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J et al (2009) Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 181:956–962PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U et al (2009) Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 27:2924–2930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ost P, Cozzarini C, De Meerleer G et al (2011) High-dose adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:960–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ost P, Lumen N, Goessaert AS et al (2011) High-dose salvage intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation after radical prostatectomy for rising or persisting prostate-specific antigen: 5-year results. Eur Urol 60:842–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiffner DC, Gottschalk AR, Lometti M et al (2007) Daily electronic portal imaging of implanted gold seed fiducials in patients undergoing radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:610–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Canter D, Greenberg RE, Horwitz EM et al (2010) Implantation of electromagnetic transponders following radical prostatectomy for delivery of IMRT. Can J Urol 17:5365–5369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW et al (2004) Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 231:379–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michalski JM, Lawton C, El Naqa I et al (2010) Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:361–368PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delouya G, Carrier JF, Beliveau-Nadeau D et al (2010) Migration of intraprostatic fiducial markers and its influence on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 96:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song S, Yenice KM, Kopec M, Liauw SL (2011) Image-guided radiotherapy using surgical clips as fiducial markers after prostatectomy: a report of total setup error, required PTV expansion, and dosimetric implications. Radiother Oncol 103:270–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klayton T, Price R, Buyyounouski MK et al (2012) Prostate bed motion during intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:130–136PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavalieri R, Gay HA, Liu J et al (2011) Total error shift patterns for daily CT on rails image-guided radiotherapy to the prostate bed. Radiat Oncol 6:142PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langenhuijsen JF, Donker R, McColl GM et al (2013) Postprostatectomy ultrasound-guided transrectal implantation of gold markers for external beam radiotherapy: technique and complications rate. Strahlenther Onkol 189:476–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Showalter TN, Nawaz AO, Xiao Y et al (2008) A cone beam CT-Based Study for clinical target definition using pelvic anatomy during postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:431–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Fortin
    • 1
  • J.-F. Carrier
    • 1
  • M.-C. Beauchemin
    • 1
  • D. Béliveau-Nadeau
    • 1
  • G. Delouya
    • 1
  • D. Taussky
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Département de Radio-OncologieCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Hôpital Notre-DameMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations