In the past 10 years, techniques to improve radiotherapy delivery, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for both inter- and intrafraction tumor localization, and hypofractionated delivery techniques such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), have evolved tremendously. This review article focuses on only one part of that evolution, electromagnetic tracking in radiation therapy. Electromagnetic tracking is still a growing technology in radiation oncology and, as such, the clinical applications are limited, the expense is high, and the reimbursement is insufficient to cover these costs. At the same time, current experience with electromagnetic tracking applied to various clinical tumor sites indicates that the potential benefits of electromagnetic tracking could be significant for patients receiving radiation therapy. Daily use of these tracking systems is minimally invasive and delivers no additional ionizing radiation to the patient, and these systems can provide explicit tumor motion data. Although there are a number of technical and fiscal issues that need to be addressed, electromagnetic tracking systems are expected to play a continued role in improving the precision of radiation delivery.

The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso(R)). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16619 imaging sessions spanning 7 years; Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3 - 4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.

The purpose of this work is to determine appropriate radiation therapy beam margins to account for intrafraction prostate translations for use with real-time electromagnetic position monitoring and correction strategies. Motion was measured continuously in 35 patients over 1157 fractions at 5 institutions. This data was studied using van Herk's formula of (αΣ + γσ') for situations ranging from no electromagnetic guidance to automated real-time corrections. Without electromagnetic guidance, margins of over 10 mm are necessary to ensure 95% dosimetric coverage while automated electromagnetic guidance allows the margins necessary for intrafraction translations to be reduced to submillimeter levels. Factors such as prostate deformation and rotation, which are not included in this analysis, will become the dominant concerns as margins are reduced. Continuous electromagnetic monitoring and automated correction have the potential to reduce prostate margins to 2-3 mm, while ensuring that a higher percentage of patients (99% versus 90%) receive a greater percentage (99% versus 95%) of the prescription dose.