Abstract Background The van Herk margin formula, derived for 3‐D conformal radiotherapy with a uniform 3. 2 mm dose penumbra and no intrinsic dose buffer, remains widely used to design CTV‐to‐PTV expansions in contemporary image‐guided prostate radiotherapy. However, coplanar VMAT techniques often feature broader penumbrae and explicit PTV–isodose clearances, potentially violating the assumptions underlying the original formulation and leading to overly conservative margins. Purpose We investigated whether the widely adopted van Herk margin formula overestimates clinical target volume (CTV) ‐to‐planning target volume (PTV) expansions for contemporary coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate treatments. Methods Fifty consecutive intact‐prostate VMAT radiotherapy plans (two coplanar arcs; clinical margins 3 mm, except for 2 mm posterior) were exported. Direction‐specific 90% isodose–to‐PTV gaps and penumbra widths were measured. Candidate anisotropic margins were tested by eroding the PTV to create CTVₑval. Monte‐Carlo simulations combined systematic (Σ) shifts with Gaussian random (σ′) blurring kernels of 0–2 mm were performed. Acceptability criteria of (i) CTV Dmin0. 03 cc ≥ 90% Rx in ≥ 90% of simulated scenarios or (ii) population tumor‐control probability (TCP) loss < 1 % were used. Results VMAT plans exhibited intrinsic 90% isodose clearances of 3–5 mm laterally/anteriorly and 1–2 mm superior–inferiorly, while axial‐plane penumbras were up to fivefold broader than van Herk's assumption. With a 0, 0, 2 mm (LR/AP/SI) margin, ≥ 90% of patients maintained Dmin0. 03 cc ≥ 90% Rx provided Σ lay within an ellipsoid of 2. 0, 1. 5, 1. 8 mm and σ′ ≤ 1. 5, 2. 0, 1. 5 mm. Under TCP criteria the safe Σ ellipsoid for high‐risk disease was 2. 5, 1. 9, 2. 2 mm, while low‐intermediate risk was even less sensitive. Conclusions For image‐guided coplanar VMAT prostate radiotherapy, an anisotropic 0, 0, 2 mm CTV‐to‐PTV margin is sufficient for target coverage. A modified margin expression that subtracts the measured isodose–to‐PTV gap and uses reduced random‐error coefficients better reflects modern practice.
Chen et al. (Mon,) studied this question.