PURPOSE: Our current understanding of intrafraction pancreatic tumor motion due to respiration is limited. In this study, we characterized pancreatic tumor motion and evaluated the application of several radiotherapy motion management strategies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventeen patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled in a prospective internal review board-approved study and imaged during shallow free-breathing using cine MRI on a 3T scanner. Tumor borders were agreed on by a radiation oncologist and an abdominal MRI radiologist. Tumor motion and correlation with the potential surrogates of the diaphragm and abdominal wall were assessed. These data were also used to evaluate planning target volume margin construction, respiratory gating, and four-dimensional treatment planning for pancreatic tumors. RESULTS: Tumor borders moved much more than expected. To provide 99% geometric coverage, margins of 20 mm inferiorly, 10 mm anteriorly, 7 mm superiorly, and 4 mm posteriorly are required. Tumor position correlated poorly with diaphragm and abdominal wall position, with patient-level Pearson correlation coefficients of -0.18-0.43. Sensitivity and specificity of gating with these surrogates was also poor, at 53%-68%, with overall error of 35%-38%, suggesting that the tumor may be underdosed and normal tissues overdosed. CONCLUSIONS: Motion of pancreatic tumor borders is highly variable between patients and larger than expected. There is substantial deformation with breathing, and tumor border position does not correlate well with abdominal wall or diaphragmatic position. Current motion management strategies may not account fully for tumor motion and should be used with caution.
PURPOSE: Our current understanding of intrafraction pancreatic tumor motion due to respiration is limited. In this study, we characterized pancreatic tumor motion and evaluated the application of several radiotherapy motion management strategies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventeen patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled in a prospective internal review board-approved study and imaged during shallow free-breathing using cine MRI on a 3T scanner. Tumor borders were agreed on by a radiation oncologist and an abdominal MRI radiologist. Tumor motion and correlation with the potential surrogates of the diaphragm and abdominal wall were assessed. These data were also used to evaluate planning target volume margin construction, respiratory gating, and four-dimensional treatment planning for pancreatic tumors. RESULTS:Tumor borders moved much more than expected. To provide 99% geometric coverage, margins of 20 mm inferiorly, 10 mm anteriorly, 7 mm superiorly, and 4 mm posteriorly are required. Tumor position correlated poorly with diaphragm and abdominal wall position, with patient-level Pearson correlation coefficients of -0.18-0.43. Sensitivity and specificity of gating with these surrogates was also poor, at 53%-68%, with overall error of 35%-38%, suggesting that the tumor may be underdosed and normal tissues overdosed. CONCLUSIONS: Motion of pancreatic tumor borders is highly variable between patients and larger than expected. There is substantial deformation with breathing, and tumor border position does not correlate well with abdominal wall or diaphragmatic position. Current motion management strategies may not account fully for tumor motion and should be used with caution.
Authors: L A Dawson; K K Brock; S Kazanjian; D Fitch; C J McGinn; T S Lawrence; R K Ten Haken; J Balter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H Shirato; S Shimizu; K Kitamura; T Nishioka; K Kagei; S Hashimoto; H Aoyama; T Kunieda; N Shinohara; H Dosaka-Akita; K Miyasaka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Anthony F Shields; Ulka Vaishampayan; Vainutis Vaitkevicius; Basil F El-Rayes; Patrick McDermott; Jay Burmeister; Todd Bossenberger; Philip A Philip Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Barbara Bussels; Laurence Goethals; Michel Feron; Didier Bielen; Steven Dymarkowski; Paul Suetens; Karin Haustermans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David P Gierga; George T Y Chen; Jong H Kung; Margrit Betke; Jonathan Lombardi; Christopher G Willett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexander Lin; Jean M Moran; Robin B Marsh; James M Balter; Benedick A Fraass; Daniel L McShan; Marc L Kessler; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Susannah Yovino; Bert W Maidment; Joseph M Herman; Naimish Pandya; Olga Goloubeva; Chris Wolfgang; Richard Schulick; Daniel Laheru; Nader Hanna; Richard Alexander; William F Regine Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Tom J Hayman; Manish R Patel; Mark S Russell; Mokenge P Malafa; Pamela J Hodul; Gregory M Springett; Junsung Choi; Ravi Shridhar; Sarah E Hoffe Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2011-07
Authors: Yijun Ding; Harrison H Barrett; Matthew A Kupinski; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Moyed Miften; Bernard L Jones Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.071