B A Vellayappan1, J Doody2, E Vandervoort2, J Szanto2, J Sinclair3, J M Caudrelier2, S Malone2. 1. Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2. Radiation Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Canada. 3. Division of Neurosurgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: Compared to post-operative whole brain radiotherapy, resection cavity radiosurgery reduces impact on neuro-cognitive function and improves quality-of-life. However, coverage of the operative tract, in addition to tumour bed, may lead to large treatment volumes and inter-observer variability. We hypothesized that pre-operative radiosurgery reduces target volume size and inter-observer variability compared to post-operative radiosurgery. MATERIALS/ METHODS: We identified 10 consecutive patients, with solitary brain metastasis, treated with post-operative cavity radiosurgery.Pre- and post-operative axial T1 contrast MRI were co-registered with the planning CT scans. Three radiation oncologists independently contoured the target volumes on the pre- and post-operative imaging. A 2mm-PTV margin was utilized for both strategies and radiosurgery treatment plans were generated. The following parameters were evaluated in the 2 plans: Mean target volume (cc), 50% isodose volume (cc), Inter-observer variability (Jaccard Index JI) and Conformity Index (CI). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean target volume, nor 50% isodose volume, between pre- and post-operative strategies. (17.6 (95% CI 9.98 - 25.22) versus 19.4 (95% CI 10.11 - 28.69) cc, P=0.80; 61.7 (95% CI 38.4 - 85.0) vs 77.7 (95% CI 34.94 - 120.46) cc, P=0.65). There was significantly less inter-observer variability and improved conformity in the pre-operative group (Mean JI 0.84(95% CI 0.82 - 0.86) versus 0.70 (95% CI 0.62 - 0.78), P = 0.005; Mean CI 1.32 (95% CI 1.26 - 1.38) vs 1.45 (95% CI 1.36 - 1.54), P= 0.01). Planned subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference (between pre- vs post-op) in the mean volume of cystic versus non-cystic metastasis. Deep lesions (>2.5cm from dura) had a larger post-operative target volume (25.8 (95% CI 15.1 - 36.5) vs 12.3 (95% CI 6.54 - 18.06) cc, P=0.06) compared to superficial lesions. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative radiosurgery has less inter-observer variability and improved plan conformity. However, there was no difference in mean target volume between the pre- versus post-operative radiation. Contouring guidelines, and peer review, may help to reduce inter-observer variability for cavity radiosurgery.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: Compared to post-operative whole brain radiotherapy, resection cavity radiosurgery reduces impact on neuro-cognitive function and improves quality-of-life. However, coverage of the operative tract, in addition to tumour bed, may lead to large treatment volumes and inter-observer variability. We hypothesized that pre-operative radiosurgery reduces target volume size and inter-observer variability compared to post-operative radiosurgery. MATERIALS/ METHODS: We identified 10 consecutive patients, with solitary brain metastasis, treated with post-operative cavity radiosurgery.Pre- and post-operative axial T1 contrast MRI were co-registered with the planning CT scans. Three radiation oncologists independently contoured the target volumes on the pre- and post-operative imaging. A 2mm-PTV margin was utilized for both strategies and radiosurgery treatment plans were generated. The following parameters were evaluated in the 2 plans: Mean target volume (cc), 50% isodose volume (cc), Inter-observer variability (Jaccard Index JI) and Conformity Index (CI). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean target volume, nor 50% isodose volume, between pre- and post-operative strategies. (17.6 (95% CI 9.98 - 25.22) versus 19.4 (95% CI 10.11 - 28.69) cc, P=0.80; 61.7 (95% CI 38.4 - 85.0) vs 77.7 (95% CI 34.94 - 120.46) cc, P=0.65). There was significantly less inter-observer variability and improved conformity in the pre-operative group (Mean JI 0.84(95% CI 0.82 - 0.86) versus 0.70 (95% CI 0.62 - 0.78), P = 0.005; Mean CI 1.32 (95% CI 1.26 - 1.38) vs 1.45 (95% CI 1.36 - 1.54), P= 0.01). Planned subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference (between pre- vs post-op) in the mean volume of cystic versus non-cystic metastasis. Deep lesions (>2.5cm from dura) had a larger post-operative target volume (25.8 (95% CI 15.1 - 36.5) vs 12.3 (95% CI 6.54 - 18.06) cc, P=0.06) compared to superficial lesions. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative radiosurgery has less inter-observer variability and improved plan conformity. However, there was no difference in mean target volume between the pre- versus post-operative radiation. Contouring guidelines, and peer review, may help to reduce inter-observer variability for cavity radiosurgery.
Authors: Banu Atalar; Leslie A Modlin; Clara Y H Choi; John R Adler; Iris C Gibbs; Steven D Chang; Griffith R Harsh; Gordon Li; Seema Nagpal; Alexandra Hanlon; Scott G Soltys Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony L Asher; Stuart H Burri; Walter F Wiggins; Renee P Kelly; Margaret O Boltes; Melissa Mehrlich; H James Norton; Robert W Fraser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cameron Brennan; T Jonathan Yang; Patrick Hilden; Zhigang Zhang; Kelvin Chan; Yoshiya Yamada; Timothy A Chan; Stella C Lymberis; Ashwatha Narayana; Viviane Tabar; Philip H Gutin; Åse Ballangrud; Eric Lis; Kathryn Beal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthew D Johnson; Vladimir Avkshtol; Andrew M Baschnagel; Kurt Meyer; Hong Ye; Inga S Grills; Peter Y Chen; Ann Maitz; Rick E Olson; Daniel R Pieper; Daniel J Krauss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul D Brown; Kurt Jaeckle; Karla V Ballman; Elana Farace; Jane H Cerhan; S Keith Anderson; Xiomara W Carrero; Fred G Barker; Richard Deming; Stuart H Burri; Cynthia Ménard; Caroline Chung; Volker W Stieber; Bruce E Pollock; Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Anthony L Asher Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian J Blonigen; Ryan D Steinmetz; Linda Levin; Michael A Lamba; Ronald E Warnick; John C Breneman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric L Chang; Jeffrey S Wefel; Kenneth R Hess; Pamela K Allen; Frederick F Lang; David G Kornguth; Rebecca B Arbuckle; J Michael Swint; Almon S Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Christina A Meyers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M J Perez-Calatayud; A J Conde-Moreno; F J Celada-Álvarez; C Rubio; F López-Campos; A Navarro-Martin; L Arribas; M Santos; J Lopez-Torrecilla; J Perez-Calatayud Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Paolo Palmisciano; Gianluca Ferini; Ramlah Khan; Othman Bin-Alamer; Giuseppe E Umana; Kenny Yu; Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Tarek Y El Ahmadieh; Ali S Haider Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Tresa McGranahan; Jerome Graber; Lynne Taylor; Vyshak Venur; Richard Ellenbogen; Andrew E Sloan; Kristin J Redmond; Matthew Foote; Samuel T Chao; John H Suh; Eric L Chang; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2021-06-07