Evidence Hub

Comparison of prostate verification with implanted gold markers in tissue surrounding the prostate and pelvic bony anatomy for external beam radiation therapy following low-dose-rate brachytherapy: a prospective clinical trial

Kaneda T, Ohashi T, Hanada T, Takenaka K, Nishimura S, Sakayori M, Sutani S, Momma T et al.

Journal of radiation research, 2020

3 citations

Abstract

We aimed to investigate whether gold marker implantation in the tissue surrounding the prostate could accurately monitor setup errors during external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy. Thirty-eight patients had confirmed intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer and received EBRT following LDR brachytherapy. In >175 computed tomography imaging sessions, the average values of the weekly setup error during EBRT to the prostate centroid at the time of gold marker matching in the surrounding tissue of the prostate and pelvic bone matching were measured and then compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Gold marker matching in the surrounding tissue of the prostate estimated setup errors better than those estimated by bone matching (3D displacement = 2.7 ± 2.0 vs 3.8 ± 2.6 mm, P < 0.01). Overall, the standard deviation of systematic (Σ) and random (σ) setup error was lower with gold marker matching than with bone matching (3D displacement = 1.8 and 1.1 mm vs 2.1 and 1.6 mm, respectively). With gold marker matching, the setup error of the position of the prostate centroid was smaller, and the optimal setup margin was lower than that with bone matching (2Σ + 0.7σ and 2.5Σ + 0.7σ of 3D displacement = 4.3 and 5.2 mm vs 5.3 and 6.4 mm, respectively). This high-precision radiotherapy approach placing gold markers in the surrounding tissue of the prostate can allow more accurate setup during EBRT following LDR brachytherapy.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free