Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the daily and cumulative dosimetric effects of intrafraction prostate motion on step-and-shoot (SNS) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, to evaluate the correlation of dosimetric effect with motion-based metrics, and to compare on a fraction-by-fraction basis the dosimetric effect induced in SNS and helical tomotherapy plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intrafraction prostate motion data from 486 fractions and 15 patients were available. A motion-encoded dose calculation technique was used to determine the variation of the clinical target volume (CTV) D(95%) values with respect to the static plan for SNS plans. The motion data were analyzed separately, and the correlation coefficients between various motion-based metrics and the dosimetric effect were determined. The dosimetric impact was compared with that incurred during another IMRT technique to assess correlation across different delivery techniques. RESULTS: The mean (±1 standard deviation [SD]) change in D(95%) in the CTV over all 486 fractions was 0.2 ± 0.5%. After the delivery of five and 12 fractions, the mean (±1 SD) changes over the 15 patients in CTV D(95%) were 0.0 ± 0.2% and 0.1 ± 0.2%, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the CTV D(95%) changes and the evaluated motion metrics were, in general, poor and ranged from r = -0.2 to r = -0.39. Dosimetric effects introduced by identical motion in SNS and helical tomotherapy IMRT techniques were poorly correlated with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.32 for the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion on the CTV is, in general, small. In only 4% of all fractions did the dosimetric consequence exceed 1% in the CTV. As expected, the cumulative effect was further reduced with fractionation. The poor correlations between the calculated motion parameters and the subsequent dosimetric effect implies that motion-based thresholds are of limited value in predicting the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion. The dosimetric effects between the two evaluated delivery techniques were poorly correlated.