Dose Perturbations of Gold Fiducial Markers in the Prostate Cancer Intensity Modulated Proton Radiation Therapy (IMPT)

Miao Zhang, Sung Kim, Ting Chen, Xiaohu Mo, Bruce G. Haffty, Ning J. Yue

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, USA.
Medical Physics Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2012.11002                

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the dose perturbations introduced by the implanted gold fiducial markers in the prostate cancer intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the impacts of different plan designs on the pertur-bations. Five proton plans: a single lateral field 3D-modulation (3D-mod) plan, 2 fields laterally opposing 3D-mod plan, 6-, 9-, and 18-field distal edge tracking (DET) plans were designed on the CT images of a prostate patient. The dose distributions were first generated for the plans free of fiducial markers with 78 Gy prescribed to 95% of the PTV. To derive the dose perturbations of the gold fiducial markers, three cylindrical shaped gold fiducial markers (3 mm long and 1 mm in diameter) were artificially inserted into the prostate, and the dose distributions were re-computed. Monte Carlo method was used for dose computation. It was found that the gold fiducial markers perturbed the dose distribu-tions, especially along the beam paths. The markers caused a shadowing effect reducing the doses in the areas beyond the markers. Overall, due to the presence of the fiducial markers, D_99% of prostate were reduced by 2.96 Gy, 4.21 Gy, 0.16 Gy, 0.34 Gy, 0.15 Gy for the plans of single field 3D-mod, 2-field parallel opposed 3D-mod, 6-, 9-, and 18-field DET respectively. Our study showed these dose perturbation effects decreased with the increase of number of beam angles. Up to 6 beam angles may be required to reduce the dose perturbations from the gold fiducial markers to a clini- cally acceptable level in IMPT.

Keywords

Gold Fiducial Marker; Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy; Prostate Cancer; Monte Carlo

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	J. C. L. Chow and G. N. Grigorov, “Monte Carlo Simula-tions of Dose near a Nonradioactive Gold Seed,” Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 12, 2006, pp. 4614-4621. doi:10.1118/1.2388573
[2]	W. Newhauser, J. Fontenot, N. Koch, L. Dong, A. Lee, Y. Zheng, L Waters and R. Mohan, “Monte Carlo Simulations of the Dosimetric Impact of Radiopaque Fiducial Markers for Proton Radiotherapy of the Prostate,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 52, No. 11, 2007, pp. 2937-2952. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/11/001
[3]	A. Giebeler, J. Fontenot, P. Balter, G. Ciangaru, R. Zhu and W. Newhauser, “Dose Perturbations from Implanted Helical Gold Markers in Proton Therapy of Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 10, 2009, pp. 63-70.
[4]	J. Cheung, R. J. Kudchadker, X. R. Zhu, A. K. Lee and W. D. Newhauser, “Dose Perturbations and Image Artifacts Caused by Carbon-Coated Ceramic and Stainless Steel Fiducials Used in Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 55, No. 23, 2010, pp. 7135-7147. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/23/S13
[5]	J. Y. Huang, W. D. Newhauser, X. R. Zhu, A. K. Lee and R. J. Kudchadker, “Investigation of Dose Perturbations and the Radiographic Visibility of Potential Fiducials for Proton Radiation Therapy of the Prostate,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 56, No. 16, 2011, pp. 5287- 5302. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/16/014
[6]	Y. K. Lim, J. Kwak, D. W. Kim, D. Shin, M. Yoon, S. Park, J. S. Kim, S. H. Ahn, J. Shin and S. B. Lee, “Microscopic Gold Particle-Based Fiducial Markers for Proton Therapy of Prostate Cancer,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 74, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1609-1616. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.02.076
[7]	R. J. Kudchadker and A. K. Lee, “Effectiveness of Using Fewer Implanted Fiducial Markers for Prostate Target Alignment,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 74, No. 4, 2009, pp. 1283-1289. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.02.033
[8]	A. Lomax, “Intensity Modulation Methods for Proton Radiotherapy,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1999, pp. 185-205. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/44/1/014
[9]	J. O. Deasy, D. Shepard and T. R. Mackie, “Distal Edge Tracking: A Proposed Delivery Method for Conformal Proton Therapy Using Intensity Modulation,” Proceedings XIIth ICCR, Salt Lake City, 1997.
[10]	M. Zhang, D. Westerly and T. Mackie, “Introducing an On-Line Adaptive Procedure for Prostate Image Guided Intensity Modulate Proton Therapy,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 56, No. 15, 2011, pp. 4947-4965. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/15/019
[11]	A. Niemierko, “Reporting and Analyzing Dose Distributions: A Concept of Equivalent Uniform Dose,” Medical Physics, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 103-110. doi:10.1118/1.598063
[12]	Y. Liao, M. Joiner, Y. Huang and J. Burmeister, “Hypofractionation: What Does It Mean for Prostate Cancer Treatment?” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 76, 2010, pp. 260-268. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.043
[13]	J. Lyman and A. Wolbarst, “Optimization of Radiation Therapy, IV: A Dose-Volume Histogram Reduction Algorithm,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989, pp. 433-436. doi:10.1016/0360-3016(89)90462-8
[14]	W. Tome and J. Fowler, “On Cold Spots in Tumor Subvolumes,” Medical Physics, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2002, pp. 1590-1598. doi:10.1118/1.1485060
[15]	http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Star/compos.pl?ap