Table 1 Studies analysing seminal vesicle motion and margins
Authors | Movements LR/AP/SI* (mm) | Margins | Localisation† | Method for margins | Deformation | Patients | Scans per patient |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current work | Centre of volume: Systematic 1.9/2.9/3.6. Random 1.4/2.7/2.1 | Geometric method approx 15 mm (whole SV and inf 2.5 cm). Van Herk Formula approx 10 mm. | Prostate centroid | Geometrical expansion of reference SV contours, and Van Herk Formula | Yes | 24 | 32 |
Frank et al.[7] | Centre of volume: Systematic 1.9/7.3/4.5. Random 0.4/1.2/0.6 | ≥ 10 mm 10 mm covers SV AP variation in 86% of treatments | Pubic symphysis | Geometrical | No | 15 | 24 |
AHerne et al.[8] | N/A | 5 mm cover both SVs in 56.2% of fractions,10 mm cover 95.5%, 15 mm cover all | Prostate fiiducial markers | Geometrical - margin to cover fiducial marker in SV | No | 9 | 8-11 |
van der Wielen et al.[14] | Deformation + movement approx 3.0 (1.7 in LR) | Approx 9–10 mm (illustrative). | Prostate fiducial markers | Van Herk Formula (illustrative) | Yes | 21 | 4 |
Mutanga et al.[15] | Used data above | 8 mm margin insufficient (IMRT) | Prostate fiducial markers | Dose (simulation including deformation with deformable registration) | Yes | 21 | 4 |
Liang et al.[16] | Maximize overlap of SV volume. Systematic 1.1/2.9/2.2. Random 1.2/2.4/1.9 | Minimum margins 4.5 mm (IMRT) | Prostate (maximize overlap of 3D volume) | Dose (deformable registration) | Yes | 24 | 16 |
O’Daniel et al.[17] | N/A | Study compared alignment technique and found 5 mm margins give a minimum of 92% of dose to SV using IMRT | Prostate centroid | Minimum dose in any fraction | Yes | 10 | 24 |
Meijer et al.[18] | N/A | 8 mm (inferior 2 cm of SV) (IMRT) | Prostate fiducial markers | Dose (deformable registration) | Yes | 30 | 8 |
Smitsmans et al.[19] | Image based registration of central (sup/inf) part of SV Systematic 1.6/2.8/-- Random 2.0/3.1/-- | 4.6 mm LR 7.6 mm AP | Prostate fiducial markers | Van Herk Formula | No | 13 | 23 |