Shingo Ohira1,2, Masaru Isono1, Yoshihiro Ueda1,3, Takero Hirata1, Reiko Ashida4, Hidenori Takahashi5, Masayoshi Miyazaki1, Masaaki Takashina2, Masahiko Koizumi2, Teruki Teshima1. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan. 2. 2 Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan. 3. 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan. 4. 4 Department of Cancer survey and gastrointestinal oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The volume of targets to which a high radiation dose can be delivered is limited for pancreatic radiotherapy. We assessed changes in movements of pancreatic tumours between simulation and treatment and determined compensatory margins. METHODS: For 23 patients, differences in implanted fiducial marker motion magnitude (MMM) and mean marker position (MMP) between four-dimensional CT and cone-beam CT were measured. Subsequently, residual uncertainty was simulated after no action level (NAL) and extended no action level (eNAL) protocols were adopted. RESULTS: With no correction, respective 95th percentile of MMM were 4.5 mm, 6.2 mm and 16.0 mm and systematic (random) errors of MMP were 2.8 mm (3.3 mm), 3.2 mm (2.0 mm) and 5.9 mm (4.0 mm) in the left-right (L-R), anteroposterior (A-P) and superoinferior (S-I) directions, so that large margins were required (L-R, 10.5 mm; A-P, 11.7 mm; and S-I, 24.8 mm). NAL reduced systematic errors of MMP, but resultant margins remained large (L-R, 8.0 mm; A-P, 9.6 mm; and S-I, 18.1 mm). eNAL compensated for time trends and obtained minimal margins (L-R, 6.7 mm; A-P, 6.7 mm; and S-I, 15.2 mm). CONCLUSION: Motion magnitude and position of pancreatic tumours during simulation are frequently not representative of that during treatment. eNAL compensated for systematic interfractional position change and would be a practical approach for improving targeting accuracy. Advances in knowledge: Considerably large margins, especially in the S-I direction, were required to compensate for intrafractional motion and interfractional position changes of the pancreatic tumour. An application of eNAL was an effective strategy to diminish these margins.
OBJECTIVE: The volume of targets to which a high radiation dose can be delivered is limited for pancreatic radiotherapy. We assessed changes in movements of pancreatic tumours between simulation and treatment and determined compensatory margins. METHODS: For 23 patients, differences in implanted fiducial marker motion magnitude (MMM) and mean marker position (MMP) between four-dimensional CT and cone-beam CT were measured. Subsequently, residual uncertainty was simulated after no action level (NAL) and extended no action level (eNAL) protocols were adopted. RESULTS: With no correction, respective 95th percentile of MMM were 4.5 mm, 6.2 mm and 16.0 mm and systematic (random) errors of MMP were 2.8 mm (3.3 mm), 3.2 mm (2.0 mm) and 5.9 mm (4.0 mm) in the left-right (L-R), anteroposterior (A-P) and superoinferior (S-I) directions, so that large margins were required (L-R, 10.5 mm; A-P, 11.7 mm; and S-I, 24.8 mm). NAL reduced systematic errors of MMP, but resultant margins remained large (L-R, 8.0 mm; A-P, 9.6 mm; and S-I, 18.1 mm). eNAL compensated for time trends and obtained minimal margins (L-R, 6.7 mm; A-P, 6.7 mm; and S-I, 15.2 mm). CONCLUSION: Motion magnitude and position of pancreatic tumours during simulation are frequently not representative of that during treatment. eNAL compensated for systematic interfractional position change and would be a practical approach for improving targeting accuracy. Advances in knowledge: Considerably large margins, especially in the S-I direction, were required to compensate for intrafractional motion and interfractional position changes of the pancreatic tumour. An application of eNAL was an effective strategy to diminish these margins.
Authors: C Glide-Hurst; M Bellon; R Foster; C Altunbas; M Speiser; M Altman; D Westerly; N Wen; B Zhao; M Miften; I J Chetty; T Solberg Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Astrid van der Horst; Silvia Wognum; Raquel Dávila Fajardo; Rianne de Jong; Jeanin E van Hooft; Paul Fockens; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Arjan Bel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: X Allen Li; Xiaojian Chen; Qiang Zhang; David G Kirsch; Ivy Petersen; Thomas F DeLaney; Carolyn R Freeman; Andy Trotti; Ying Hitchcock; Meena Bedi; Michael Haddock; Kilian Salerno; George Dundas; Dian Wang Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-17
Authors: Emma J Harris; Ellen M Donovan; Charlotte E Coles; Hans C J de Boer; Andrew Poynter; Christine Rawlings; Gordon C Wishart; Philip M Evans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: A Yuriko Minn; Devin Schellenberg; Peter Maxim; Yelin Suh; Stephen McKenna; Brett Cox; Sonja Dieterich; Lei Xing; Edward Graves; Karyn A Goodman; Daniel Chang; Albert C Koong Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: S Dobiasch; S Kampfer; R Burkhardt; D Schilling; T E Schmid; J J Wilkens; S E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 3.621