Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:17:08.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The stability of seeds in external beam prostate radiotherapy and implications of migration in current practice: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2014

K. Soprun ,
C. Sale  and
K. Knight
K. Soprun*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Andrew Love Cancer Centre (Barwon Health), Geelong, Victoria, Australia
C. Sale
Affiliation:
Andrew Love Cancer Centre (Barwon Health), Geelong, Victoria, Australia
K. Knight
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
*
Correspondence to: K. Soprun, Department of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia/Andrew Love Cancer Centre (Barwon Health), Geelong, Victoria, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

To determine and summarise the literature on prostatic seed stability by investigating seed marker migration and loss in prostate cancer patients. In addition, documenting the implications of significant seed migration and loss in clinical practise.

Methods

PubMed and Sciencedirect databases were used to locate papers on the stability of gold seed markers in prostate patients treated with external beam radiation therapy. The search found 3,238 articles and ten articles were selected and reviewed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for the scope of this literature review.

Results

Minimal migration and loss of seeds was observed in the literature reviewed, with the majority of authors reporting <2·0 mm migration within the prostate; however, there were individual cases reported outside of the 2·0 mm threshold. It was also found that significant migration had an impact on image matching, as well as, planning treatment volume margins.

Conclusion

Seed stability within the prostate has been proven, with most authors reporting minimal migration within a 2·0 mm threshold and minimal loss of seeds. Although individual cases can have significant migration and loss, if marker migration exceeds the 2·0 mm threshold, a protocol is required to deal with both non-significant and significant migration.

Keywords

external beam radiation therapygold seedsmigrationprostate cancer
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 56 - 62
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Schallenkamp, J, Herman, M, Kruse, J, Pisansky, T. Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005; 63 (3): 800–811.Google Scholar
2.Kupelian, P, Willoughby, T, Meeks, Set al. Intraprostatic fiducials for localization of the prostate gland: monitoring intermarker distances during radiation therapy to test for marker stability. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005; 62 (5): 1291–1296.Google Scholar
3.Bujold, A, Craig, T, Jaffray, D, Dawson, L. Image-guided radiotherapy: has it influenced patient outcomes? Semin Radiat Oncol 2012; 22: 50–61.Google Scholar
4.McNair, H, Hansen, V, Parker, C, Evans, P, Norman, A, Miles, E. Comparison of the use of bony anatomy and internal markers for offline verification and an evaluation of the potential benefit of online and offline verification protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 71 (1): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Nederveen, A, Van Der Heide, U, Dehnad, H, Moorselaar, R, Hofman, P, Lagendijk, J. Measurements and clinical consequences of prostate motion during a radiotherapy fraction. Int J Radiat Oncol Phys 2002; 53 (1): 206–214.Google Scholar
6.Middleton, M, See, A, Rolfo, Aet al.Intraprostatic fiducial for image guidance: workflow implications in a single linac department. Radiography 2008; 14: 312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Van den Heuvel, F, Fugazzi, J, Seppi, E, Forman, J. Clinical application of a repositioning scheme using gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79: 94–100.Google Scholar
8.Rimmer, Y, Burnet, N, Routsis, Det al.Practical issues in the implementation of image-guided radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer within a UK department. Clin Oncol 2008; 20: 22–30.Google Scholar
9.Delouya, G, Beliveau-Nadeau, D, Carrier, J, Donath, D, Taussky, D. Migration of intraprostatic fiducial markers and its influence on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96: 43–47.Google Scholar
10.Moman, M, Van der Heide, U, Kotte, Aet al.Long term experience with transrectal and transperineal implantations of fiducial gold markers in prostate position verification in external beam radiotherapy; feasibility, toxicity and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96: 38–42.Google Scholar
11.Poggi, M, Gant, DA, Sewchand, W, Warlick, W. Marker seed migration in prostate localization. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006; 56 (5): 1248–1251.Google Scholar
12.Pouliot, J, Aubin, M, Langen, Ket al.(Non)-migration of radiopaque markers used for online localization of prostate with an electronic portal imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003; 56 (3): 862–866.Google Scholar
13.Shirato, H, Harada, T, Harabayashi, Tet al.Feasibility of insertion/implantation of 2.0 mm diameter gold internal fiducial markers for precise set-up and real time tumour tracking in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003; 56 (1): 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Wu, J, Haycocks, T, Alasti, Het al.Positioning errors and prostate motion during conformal prostate radiotherapy using online isocentre set-up verification and implanted prostate markers. Radiother Oncol 2011; 61: 127–133.Google Scholar
15.Dehnad, H, Nederveen, A, Van Der Heide, Uet al. Clinical feasibility study for the use of implanted gold seeds in the prostate as a reliable positioning markers during megavoltage irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2003; 67: 295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Litzenberg, D, Dawson, L, Sandler, Het al. Daily prostate targeting using implanted radiopaque markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002; 52 (3): 699–703.Google Scholar
17.Chung, P, Haycocks, T, Brown, Tet al. On-line portal imaging of implanted fiducial markers for the reduction of interfraction error during conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004; 60 (1): 329–334.Google Scholar
18.Deegan, T, Owen, R, Holt, T, Roberts, L, Biggs, J, McCarthy, A. Interobserver variability of radiation therapists aligning to fiducial markers for prostate radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013; 57 (4): 519–523.Google Scholar
19.Thompson, A, Fox, C, Foroudi, Fet al.Planning and implementing an implanted fiducial programme for prostate cancer radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008; 52: 419–424.Google Scholar
20.Duffton, A, McNee, S, Muirhead, R, Alhasso, A. Clinical commissioning of online seed matching protocol for prostate radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e1273–e1281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Gauthier, I, Carrier, J, Beliveau-Nadeau, D, Fortin, B, Taussky, D. Dosimetric impact and theoretical clinical benefit of fiducial markers for dose escalated prostate cancer radiation treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2009 74 (4): 1128–1133.Google Scholar
22.Button, M, Staffurth, J. Clinical application of image-guided radiation therapy in bladder and prostate cancer. Clin Oncol 2010; 22: 698–706.Google Scholar
23.Barney, B, Lee, J, Handrahan, D, Welsh, K, Cook, T, Sause, W. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer comparing kV imaging of fiducial markers with cone beam computed tomography (CBRT). Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011; 80 (1): 301–305.Google Scholar