Intrafraction prostate motion during IMRT for prostate cancer.
Although the interfraction motion of the prostate has been previously studied through the use of fiducial markers, CT scans, and ultrasound-based systems, intrafraction motion is not well documented. In this report, the B-mode, Acquisition, and Targeting (BAT) ultrasound system was used to measure intrafraction prostate motion during 200 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) sessions for prostate cancer. Twenty men receiving treatment with IMRT for clinically localized prostate cancer were selected for the study. Pre- and posttreatment BAT ultrasound alignment images were collected immediately before and after IMRT on 10 treatment days for a total of 400 BAT alignment procedures. Any ultrasound shifts of the prostate borders in relation to the planning CT scan were recorded in 3 dimensions: right-left (RL), anteroposterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI). Every ultrasound procedure was evaluated for image quality and alignment according to a 3-point grading scale. All the BAT images were judged to be of acceptable quality and alignment. The dominant directions of intrafraction prostate motion were anteriorly and superiorly. The mean magnitude of shifts (+/-SD) was 0.01 +/- 0.4 mm, 0.2 +/- 1.3 mm, and 0.1 +/- 1.0 mm in the left, anterior, and superior directions, respectively. The maximal range of motion occurred in the AP dimension, from 6.8 mm anteriorly to 4.6 mm posteriorly. The percentage of treatments during which prostate motion was judged to be <or=5 mm was 100%, 99%, and 99.5% in the RL, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Three of the measurements were >5 mm. The extent of intrafraction motion was much smaller than that of interfraction motion. Linear regression analysis showed very little correlation between the two types of motion (r = 0.014, 0.029, and 0.191, respectively) in the RL, AP, and SI directions. Using an ultrasound-based system, intrafraction prostate motion occurred predominantly in the anterior and superior directions, but was clinically insignificant. Intrafraction motion was much smaller than interfraction motion, and the two types of movement did not correlate.