Warren G Campbell1, Bernard L Jones2, Tracey Schefter2, Karyn A Goodman2, Moyed Miften2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: warren.campbell@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ablative radiation therapy can be beneficial for pancreatic cancer, and motion mitigation helps to reduce dose to nearby organs-at-risk. Here, we compared two competing methods of motion mitigation-abdominal compression and respiratory gating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scans of 19 pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy were acquired with and without abdominal compression, and 3D target motion was reconstructed from CBCT projection images. Daily target motion without mitigation was compared against motion with compression and with simulated respiratory gating. Gating was free-breathing and based on an external surrogate. Target coverage was also evaluated for each scenario by simulating reduced target margins. RESULTS: Without mitigation, average daily target motion in LR/AP/SI directions was 5.3, 7.3, and 13.9mm, respectively. With abdominal compression, these values were 5.2, 5.3, and 8.5mm, and with respiratory gating they were 3.2, 3.9, and 5.5mm, respectively. Reductions with compression were significant in AP/SI directions, while reductions with gating were significant in all directions. Respiratory gating also demonstrated better coverage in the reduced margins scenario. CONCLUSION: Respiratory gating is the most effective strategy for reducing motion in pancreatic SBRT, and may allow for dose escalation through a reduction in target margin.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ablative radiation therapy can be beneficial for pancreatic cancer, and motion mitigation helps to reduce dose to nearby organs-at-risk. Here, we compared two competing methods of motion mitigation-abdominal compression and respiratory gating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scans of 19 pancreatic cancerpatients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy were acquired with and without abdominal compression, and 3D target motion was reconstructed from CBCT projection images. Daily target motion without mitigation was compared against motion with compression and with simulated respiratory gating. Gating was free-breathing and based on an external surrogate. Target coverage was also evaluated for each scenario by simulating reduced target margins. RESULTS: Without mitigation, average daily target motion in LR/AP/SI directions was 5.3, 7.3, and 13.9mm, respectively. With abdominal compression, these values were 5.2, 5.3, and 8.5mm, and with respiratory gating they were 3.2, 3.9, and 5.5mm, respectively. Reductions with compression were significant in AP/SI directions, while reductions with gating were significant in all directions. Respiratory gating also demonstrated better coverage in the reduced margins scenario. CONCLUSION: Respiratory gating is the most effective strategy for reducing motion in pancreatic SBRT, and may allow for dose escalation through a reduction in target margin.
Authors: Morten Hoyer; Henrik Roed; Lisa Sengelov; Anders Traberg; Lars Ohlhuis; Jorgen Pedersen; Hanne Nellemann; Anne Kiil Berthelsen; Frey Eberholst; Svend Aage Engelholm; Hans von der Maase Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Albert C Koong; Erin Christofferson; Quynh-Thu Le; Karyn A Goodman; Anthony Ho; Timothy Kuo; James M Ford; George A Fisher; Ralph Greco; Jeffrey Norton; George P Yang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Simul D Parikh; Dwight E Heron; Michael Howell; Herbert Zeh; A James Moser; Nathan Bahary; Annette Quinn; Steven A Burton Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.339
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: Michael D Chuong; Gregory M Springett; Jessica M Freilich; Catherine K Park; Jill M Weber; Eric A Mellon; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Kenneth L Meredith; Sarah E Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Yijun Ding; Warren G Campbell; Moyed Miften; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Karyn A Goodman; Tracey Schefter; Bernard L Jones Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-04-02
Authors: Joshua S Niedzielski; Yufei Liu; Sylvia S W Ng; Rachael M Martin; Luis A Perles; Sam Beddar; Neal Rebueno; Eugene J Koay; Cullen Taniguchi; Emma B Holliday; Prajnan Das; Grace L Smith; Bruce D Minsky; Ethan B Ludmir; Joseph M Herman; Albert Koong; Gabriel O Sawakuchi Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xianjin Dai; Yang Lei; Jacob Wynne; James Janopaul-Naylor; Tonghe Wang; Justin Roper; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Pretesh Patel; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kwun-Ye Chu; Rosie Cooke; Frank Van den Heuvel; Somnath Mukherjee; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-12-16