M Rico1, E Martínez2, S Pellejero3, B Bermejo4, P Navarrete2, M Barrado2, M Campo2, F Mañeru3, E Villafranca2, J Aristu5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. lekimrico@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the present study we compared three different Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment delivery techniques in terms of treatment time (TT) and their relation with intrafraction variation (IFV). Besides that, we analyzed if different clinical factors could have an influence on IFV. Finally, we appreciated the soundness of our margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients undergoing SBRT for stage I lung cancer or lung metastases up to 5 cm were included in the study. All underwent 4DCT scan to create an internal target volume (ITV) and a 5 mm margin was added to establish the planning target volume (PTV). Cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired before and after each treatment to quantify the IFV. Three different treatment delivery techniques were employed: fixed fields (FF), dynamically collimated arcs (AA) or a combination of both (FA). We studied if TT was different among these modalities of SBRT and whether TT and IFV were correlated. Clinical data related to patients and tumors were recorded as potential influential factors over the IFV. RESULTS: A total of 52 lesions and 147 fractions were analyzed. Mean IFV for x-, y- and z-axis were 1 ± 1.16 mm, 1.29 ± 1.38 mm and 1.17 ± 1.08 mm, respectively. Displacements were encompassed by the 5 mm margin in 96.1 % of fractions. TT was significantly longer in FF therapy (24.76 ± 5.4 min), when compared with AA (15.30 ± 3.68 min) or FA (17.79 ± 3.52 min) (p < 0.001). Unexpectedly, IFV did not change significantly between them (p = 0.471). Age (p = 0.003) and left vs. right location (p = 0.005) were related to 3D shift ≥2 mm. In the multivariate analysis only age showed a significant impact on the IFV (OR = 1.07, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of AA, FF or FA does not impact on IFV although FF treatment takes significantly longer treatment time. Our immobilization device offers enough accuracy and the 5 mm margin may be considered acceptable as it accounts for more than 95 % of tumor shifts. Age is the only clinical factor that influenced IFV significantly in our analysis.
PURPOSE: In the present study we compared three different Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment delivery techniques in terms of treatment time (TT) and their relation with intrafraction variation (IFV). Besides that, we analyzed if different clinical factors could have an influence on IFV. Finally, we appreciated the soundness of our margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients undergoing SBRT for stage I lung cancer or lung metastases up to 5 cm were included in the study. All underwent 4DCT scan to create an internal target volume (ITV) and a 5 mm margin was added to establish the planning target volume (PTV). Cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired before and after each treatment to quantify the IFV. Three different treatment delivery techniques were employed: fixed fields (FF), dynamically collimated arcs (AA) or a combination of both (FA). We studied if TT was different among these modalities of SBRT and whether TT and IFV were correlated. Clinical data related to patients and tumors were recorded as potential influential factors over the IFV. RESULTS: A total of 52 lesions and 147 fractions were analyzed. Mean IFV for x-, y- and z-axis were 1 ± 1.16 mm, 1.29 ± 1.38 mm and 1.17 ± 1.08 mm, respectively. Displacements were encompassed by the 5 mm margin in 96.1 % of fractions. TT was significantly longer in FF therapy (24.76 ± 5.4 min), when compared with AA (15.30 ± 3.68 min) or FA (17.79 ± 3.52 min) (p < 0.001). Unexpectedly, IFV did not change significantly between them (p = 0.471). Age (p = 0.003) and left vs. right location (p = 0.005) were related to 3D shift ≥2 mm. In the multivariate analysis only age showed a significant impact on the IFV (OR = 1.07, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of AA, FF or FA does not impact on IFV although FF treatment takes significantly longer treatment time. Our immobilization device offers enough accuracy and the 5 mm margin may be considered acceptable as it accounts for more than 95 % of tumor shifts. Age is the only clinical factor that influenced IFV significantly in our analysis.
Authors: M Uematsu; M Sonderegger; A Shioda; K Tahara; T Fukui; Y Hama; T Kojima; J R Wong; S Kusano Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ronald C McGarry; Lech Papiez; Mark Williams; Tia Whitford; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Drexell Hunter Boggs; Steven Feigenberg; Robert Walter; Dennis Wissing; Bijal Patel; Terry Wu; Lane Rosen Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Suresh Senan; Marinus A Paul; Reza J Mehran; Alexander V Louie; Peter Balter; Harry J M Groen; Stephen E McRae; Joachim Widder; Lei Feng; Ben E E M van den Borne; Mark F Munsell; Coen Hurkmans; Donald A Berry; Erik van Werkhoven; John J Kresl; Anne-Marie Dingemans; Omar Dawood; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Larry S Carpenter; Katrien De Jaeger; Ritsuko Komaki; Ben J Slotman; Egbert F Smit; Jack A Roth Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Frank J Lagerwaard; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Egbert F Smit; Ben J Slotman; S Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Inga S Grills; Geoffrey Hugo; Larry L Kestin; Ana Paula Galerani; K Kenneth Chao; Jennifer Wloch; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Inga S Grills; Victor S Mangona; Robert Welsh; Gary Chmielewski; Erika McInerney; Shannon Martin; Jennifer Wloch; Hong Ye; Larry L Kestin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544