Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify interfractional anatomical variations and their dosimetric impact during the course of fractionated proton therapy (PT) of prostate cancer and to assess the robustness of the current treatment planning techniques. METHODS: Simulation and daily in-room CT scans from ten prostate carcinoma patients were analyzed. PT treatment plans (78 Gy in 39 fractions of 2 Gy) were created on the simulation CT, delivering 25 fractions to PTV1 (expanded from prostate and seminal vesicles), followed by 14 boost fractions to PTV2 (expanded from prostate). Plans were subsequently applied to daily CT, with beams aligned to the prostate center in the sagittal plane. For five patients having a sufficiently large daily imaging volume, structure contours were manually drawn, and plans were evaluated for all CT sets. For the other five patients, the plans were evaluated for six selected fractions. The daily CT was matched to the simulation CT through deformable registration. The registration accuracy was validated for each fraction, and the three patients with a large number of accurately registered fractions were used for dose accumulation. RESULTS: In individual fractions, the coverage of the prostate, seminal vesicles, and PTV1 was generally maintained at the corresponding prescription dose. For PTV2, the volume covered by the fractional prescription dose of 2 Gy (i.e., V2) was, on average, reduced by less than 3% compared to the simulation plan. Among the 225 (39 x 5 + 6 x 5) fractions examined, 15 showed a V2 reduction larger than 5%, of which ten were caused by a large variation in rectal gas, and five were due to a prostate shift in the craniocaudal direction. The fractional dose to the anterior rectal wall was found to increase for one patient who had large rectal gas volume in 25 of the 39 fractions, and another who experienced significant prostate volume reduction during the treatment. The fractional bladder dose generally increased with decreasing fullness. In the total accumulated dose for the three patients after excluding a few fractions with inaccurate registration due to a large amount of rectal gas (a condition inconsistent with RTOG protocol), 98.5%, 96.6%, and 98.2% of the PTV2 received the prescription dose of 78 Gy. The V75 and V70 of the anterior rectal wall and bladder both remained within tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that the PT planning techniques and dose constraints used at our institution ensure that target coverage to the prescription dose is maintained in the presence of interfractional anatomical variations. Dose coverage in individual fractions can be compromised, and normal tissue dose increased, due to deviations in the bladder and rectal volume compared to the simulation plans or progressive changes in the prostate volume during the treatment. Deviations from the plan can be reduced with efforts aimed at maintaining consistent daily patient anatomy.