Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is an essential tool in the accurate delivery of modern radiotherapy techniques. Prostate radiotherapy positioned using skin marks or bony anatomy may be adequate for delivering a relatively homogeneous whole-pelvic radiotherapy dose, but these surrogates are not reliable when using reduced margins, dose escalation or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. Fiducial markers (FMs) for prostate IGRT have been in use since the 1990s. They require surgical implantation and provide a surrogate for the position of the prostate gland. A variety of FMs are available and they can be used in a number of ways. This review aimed to establish the evidence for using prostate FMs in terms of feasibility, implantation procedures, types of FMs used, FM migration, imaging modalities used and the clinical impact of FMs. A search strategy was defined and a literature search was carried out in Medline. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, which resulted in 50 articles being included in this review. The evidence demonstrates that FMs provide a more accurate surrogate for the position of the prostate than either external skin marks or bony anatomy. A combination of FM alignment and soft-tissue analysis is currently the most effective and widely available approach to ensuring accuracy in prostate IGRT. FM implantation is safe and well tolerated. FM migration is possible but minimal. Standardization of all techniques and procedures in relation to the use of prostate FMs is required. Finally, a clinical trial investigating a non-surgical alternative to prostate FMs is introduced.

Although the quantitative performance of the coil is affected by the integration of a flat couch top, there is no discernible deterioration of diagnostic image quality, as assessed by two consultant radiologists. Although the flat couch insert moved patients higher in the bore of the scanner, all patients in the study were successfully scanned.

This study aims to quantify the incidence and distribution of prostatic calculi in a population of prostate radiotherapy patients and assess their potential role in prostate image guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Methods & materials: A retrospective analysis of trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS), computed tomography (CT) planning and treatment verification cone beam CT (CBCT) scans from radical prostate radiotherapy patients (external beam and brachytherapy) between 2012 and 2014 was undertaken by a single experienced observer. An internationally validated schema from the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data system (PIRADS) was used to map the location of calculi. The association of calculi with patient and disease characteristics was explored. Data was analysed using SPSS (IBM version 22.0) using descriptive statistical methods and logistic binary regression analysis. Results: 389 scan sets from 254 patients were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of calculi was 85% (n = 218) of which 79% (n = 201) were intra-prostatic calculi. The mean number of intraprostatic calculi was 2 (range 1-10) and the mean size of calculi was 3.7 mm (range 0.5-15 mm). Calculi were most frequently observed in the posterior of the mid-gland (PI-RADs 3p, 9p) and posterior of the apex (PI-RADs 5p, 11p). 99% (n = 135) of CT planning scans with a corresponding CBCT had calculi in the same PIRADs location and all calculi were visible at the last fraction. There was no statistically significant association of calculi and N stage, M stage or Gleason score. Conclusions: A significant proportion of prostate radiotherapy patients have prostatic calculi detectable on pre radiotherapy imaging. Calculi observed on CT were also detectable on CBCT in 99% of cases and remain visible at the end of treatment. These findings add to the growing evidence base supporting the potential of calculi as an alternative to fiducial markers to aid prostate IGRT.

Introduction and purposeAccurate and reproducible patient positioning is a critical step in radiotherapy for breast cancer. This has seen the use of permanent skin markings becoming standard practice in many centres. Permanent skin markings may have a negative impact on long-term cosmetic outcome, which may in turn, have psychological implications in terms of body image. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a semi-permanent tattooing device for the administration of skin marks for breast radiotherapy set-up.Materials and methodsThis was designed as a phase II double-blinded randomised-controlled study comparing our standard permanent tattoos with the Precision Plus Micropigmentation (PPMS) device method. Patients referred for radical breast radiotherapy were eligible for the study. Each study participant had three marks applied using a randomised combination of the standard permanent and PPMS methods and was blinded to the type of each mark. Follow up was at routine appointments until 24 months post radiotherapy. Participants and a blind assessor were invited to score the visibility of each tattoo at each follow-up using a Visual Analogue Scale. Tattoo scores at each time point and change in tattoo scores at 24 months were analysed by a general linear model using the patient as a fixed effect and the type of tattoo (standard or research) as covariate. A simple questionnaire was used to assess radiographer feedback on using the PPMS.ResultsIn total, 60 patients were recruited to the study, of which 55 were available for follow-up at 24 months. Semi-permanent tattoos were more visible at 24 months than the permanent tattoos. Semi-permanent tattoos demonstrated a greater degree of fade than the permanent tattoos at 24 months (final time point) post completion of radiotherapy. This was not statistically significant, although it was more apparent for the patient scores (p=0·071) than the blind assessor scores (p=0·27). No semi-permanent tattoos required re-marking before the end of radiotherapy and no adverse skin reactions were observed.ConclusionThe PPMS presents a safe and feasible alternative to our permanent tattooing method. An extended period of follow-up is required to fully assess the extent of semi-permanent tattoo fade.

No abstract

60 Background: Image guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer (PCA) frequently employs surgically implanted fiducial markers (FMs). However, it is estimated that up to 35% of prostate radiotherapy patients have prostatic calculi (PC) visible on treatment cone beam CTs (CBCT). The purpose of this clinical trial is to directly compare FMs with PCs as an aid to prostate IGRT. Methods: We report data from a single institution prospective clinical trial investigating the feasibility of using prostate calcifications as natural FMs for IGRT. Patients planned for standard prostate radical EBRT +/- brachytherapy were eligible. Prior to CT planning, 3 gold fiducial markers are inserted into the prostate by the trans-perineal route under TRUS guidance. PCs visible within the PTV were contoured. Participants were aligned to FMs for EBRT using daily CBCT image guidance on a Varian TrueBeam linac. Off-line, a single experienced user analyses CBCTs using Image Registration in Eclipse (version 13.6). Random and systematic set-up errors are determined based on FMs, PCs (where present), prostate gland (PG) and bony landmarks (BL) and CTV-PTV margins derived for each data set. Results: 30 participants with PC have been recruited. Data from the first 19 patients (365 fractions), resulted in 2555 individual image registrations (7665 individual data points). The PTV margins required based on each reference structure are summarised in Table 1. The maximum difference between the CTV-PTV(PC) margin and CTV-PTV(FM) margin is 2.2mm in the X or L/R dimension. Margins required for FM, PG and PC in the Y and Z dimensions are comparable, with a maximum difference of 0.5mm between CTV-PTV(PC) and CTV-PTV(PG). Conclusions: Preliminary results from this study demonstrate some evidence to support the use of PCs as an alternative to FMs for prostate IGRT. Future analysis will include location of PC according to the PIRADs schema and patient feedback in relation to FM implantation. Clinical trial information: NA. [Table: see text]

No abstract

No abstract