PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rotational setup errors on dose distribution in spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-nine cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 16 SBRT treatment courses were analyzed. Alignment (including rotation) to the treatment planning computed tomography was performed, followed by translational alignment that reproduced the actual positioning. The planned fluence was then applied to determine the delivered dose to the targets and organs at risk. RESULTS: The mean planning target volume (PTV) was 71.01 mL (SD +/- 60.05; range, 22.62-250.65 mL). Prescribed dose (to the 62-82% isodose) was 14-30 Gy in one to six fractions. The average rotational displacements were 0.38 +/- 1.21, 1.12 +/- 1.82, and -0.51 +/- 2.0 degrees with maximal rotations of -4.29, 5.76, and -6.64 degrees along the x (pitch), y (yaw), and z (roll) axes, respectively. PTV coverage changed by an average of -0.07 Gy (SD +/- 0.20 Gy) between the rotated and the original plan, representing 0.92% of prescription dose (SD +/- 2.65%). For the spinal cord, planned with 2-mm expansion to create a planning organ at risk volume (PRV), the difference in minimum dose to the upper 10% of the PRV volume was 0.03 +/- 0.3 Gy (maximum, 0.9 Gy). Other organs at risk saw insignificant changes in dose. CONCLUSIONS: PRV expansion generally assures safe treatment delivery in the face of typically encountered rotations. Given the variability of delivered dose within this expansion for certain cases, caution should be taken to properly interpret doses to the cord when considering clinical dose limits.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rotational setup errors on dose distribution in spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-nine cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 16 SBRT treatment courses were analyzed. Alignment (including rotation) to the treatment planning computed tomography was performed, followed by translational alignment that reproduced the actual positioning. The planned fluence was then applied to determine the delivered dose to the targets and organs at risk. RESULTS: The mean planning target volume (PTV) was 71.01 mL (SD +/- 60.05; range, 22.62-250.65 mL). Prescribed dose (to the 62-82% isodose) was 14-30 Gy in one to six fractions. The average rotational displacements were 0.38 +/- 1.21, 1.12 +/- 1.82, and -0.51 +/- 2.0 degrees with maximal rotations of -4.29, 5.76, and -6.64 degrees along the x (pitch), y (yaw), and z (roll) axes, respectively. PTV coverage changed by an average of -0.07 Gy (SD +/- 0.20 Gy) between the rotated and the original plan, representing 0.92% of prescription dose (SD +/- 2.65%). For the spinal cord, planned with 2-mm expansion to create a planning organ at risk volume (PRV), the difference in minimum dose to the upper 10% of the PRV volume was 0.03 +/- 0.3 Gy (maximum, 0.9 Gy). Other organs at risk saw insignificant changes in dose. CONCLUSIONS: PRV expansion generally assures safe treatment delivery in the face of typically encountered rotations. Given the variability of delivered dose within this expansion for certain cases, caution should be taken to properly interpret doses to the cord when considering clinical dose limits.
Authors: E Steenland; J W Leer; H van Houwelingen; W J Post; W B van den Hout; J Kievit; H de Haes; H Martijn; B Oei; E Vonk; E van der Steen-Banasik; R G Wiggenraad; J Hoogenhout; C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; G van Tienhoven; R Wanders; J Pomp; M van Reijn; I van Mierlo; E Rutten; J Leer; T van Mierlo Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Justin Lee; David Hodgson; Edward Chow; Andrea Bezjak; Pamela Catton; Debbie Tsuji; Mary O'Brien; Cyril Danjoux; Charles Hayter; Padraig Warde; Mary K Gospodarowicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William F Hartsell; Charles B Scott; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charles W Scarantino; Robert A Ivker; Mack Roach; John H Suh; William F Demas; Benjamin Movsas; Ivy A Petersen; Andre A Konski; Charles S Cleeland; Nora A Janjan; Michelle DeSilvio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter C Gerszten; Steven A Burton; Cihat Ozhasoglu; William J Vogel; William C Welch; Joseph Baar; David M Friedland Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2005-10
Authors: Eleftheria Astreinidou; Arjan Bel; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Chris H J Terhaard; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel E Roos; Sandra L Turner; Peter C O'Brien; Jennifer G Smith; Nigel A Spry; Bryan H Burmeister; Peter J Hoskin; David L Ball Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-10-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jinkoo Kim; Jian-Yue Jin; Ning Wen; Samir H Patel; Benjamin Movsas; Jack Rock; Indrin J Chetty; Samuel Ryu Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2012
Authors: Jean L Peng; Chihray Liu; Yu Chen; Robert J Amdur; Kenneth Vanek; Jonathan G Li Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Poonam Yadav; Hima B Musunuru; Jacob S Witt; Michael Bassetti; John Bayouth; Andrew M Baschnagel Journal: Radiol Oncol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Fang Li; Jeonghoon Park; Ron Lalonde; Si Young Jang; Maria Stefania diMayorca; John C Flickinger; Andrew Keller; Mohammed Saiful Huq Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 2.102