PURPOSE: To assess day-to-day differences between planned and delivered target volume (TV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose distributions in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and to investigate the dosimetric impact of setup corrections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 14 patients previously treated with SBRT, the planning CT scan and three treatment scans (one for each fraction) were included in this study. For each treatment scan, two dose distributions were calculated: one using the planned setup for the body frame (no correction), and one using the clinically applied (corrected) setup derived from measured tumor displacements. Per scan, the two dose distributions were mutually compared, and the clinically delivered distribution was compared with planning. Doses were recalculated in equivalent 2-Gy fraction doses. Statistical analysis was performed with the linear mixed model. RESULTS: With setup corrections, the mean loss in TV coverage relative to planning was 1.7%, compared with 6.8% without corrections. For calculated equivalent uniform doses, these figures were 2.3% and 15.5%, respectively. As for the TV, mean deviations of delivered OAR doses from planning were small (between -0.4 and +0.3 Gy), but the spread was much larger for the OARs. In contrast to the TV, the mean impact of setup corrections on realized OAR doses was close to zero, with large positive and negative exceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Daily correction of the treatment setup is required to obtain adequate TV coverage. Because of day-to-day patient anatomy changes, large deviations in OAR doses from planning did occur. On average, setup corrections had no impact on these doses. Development of new procedures for image guidance and adaptive protocols is warranted.
PURPOSE: To assess day-to-day differences between planned and delivered target volume (TV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose distributions in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and to investigate the dosimetric impact of setup corrections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 14 patients previously treated with SBRT, the planning CT scan and three treatment scans (one for each fraction) were included in this study. For each treatment scan, two dose distributions were calculated: one using the planned setup for the body frame (no correction), and one using the clinically applied (corrected) setup derived from measured tumor displacements. Per scan, the two dose distributions were mutually compared, and the clinically delivered distribution was compared with planning. Doses were recalculated in equivalent 2-Gy fraction doses. Statistical analysis was performed with the linear mixed model. RESULTS: With setup corrections, the mean loss in TV coverage relative to planning was 1.7%, compared with 6.8% without corrections. For calculated equivalent uniform doses, these figures were 2.3% and 15.5%, respectively. As for the TV, mean deviations of delivered OAR doses from planning were small (between -0.4 and +0.3 Gy), but the spread was much larger for the OARs. In contrast to the TV, the mean impact of setup corrections on realized OAR doses was close to zero, with large positive and negative exceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Daily correction of the treatment setup is required to obtain adequate TV coverage. Because of day-to-day patient anatomy changes, large deviations in OAR doses from planning did occur. On average, setup corrections had no impact on these doses. Development of new procedures for image guidance and adaptive protocols is warranted.
Authors: Michael Velec; Joanne L Moseley; Tim Craig; Laura A Dawson; Kristy K Brock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ruijiang Li; Edward Mok; Daniel T Chang; Megan Daly; Billy W Loo; Maximilian Diehn; Quynh-Thu Le; Albert Koong; Lei Xing Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cynthia L Eccles; Laura A Dawson; Joanne L Moseley; Kristy K Brock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038