Lijun Ma1, Lei Wang2, Young Lee3, Chia-Lin Tseng3, Scott Soltys2, Steve Braunstein1, Arjun Sahgal3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Doses to small spinal cord isodose volume (such as those ranging from Dmax 0.0 cc to 0.5 cc) as well as to large volumes (such as those ranging from 0.5 cc to 3.0 cc) are critical parameters to guide safe practice of spine SBRT. We here report a mathematical formula that links the most probable dose volume limits together for common spine SBRT cases.Methods and materials: A dose ripple formula parameterized with equivalent dose radius (EDR) was derived to model spinal cord small-volume doses for a spine SBRT treatment. A cohort of spine SBRT cases (n=68), treated with either a robotic x-band linac or a conventional S-band linac, was selected to verify the model predictions. The mean prescription dose was 22± 4 Gy (range, 12-40 Gy) delivered in 2±1 fractions. The mean and median target volume was 39.4±42.5 cc and 30.3 cc (range, 0.24-264.2 cc), respectively. Direct correlations between the spinal cord Dmax and variable spinal cord doses of increasing isodose volumes (ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc) of different planning organ-at-risk volumes (PRVs) were investigated. The PRV structures for the study included the true cord, thecal sac and the true cord plus variable margins ranging from 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm. RESULTS: No direct linear correlation was observed amongst the small volume doses to the spinal cord PRVs. However, strong linear correlations (R2 > 0.96) for all the studied PRVs were observed when correlating EDRs amongst isodose volumes ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc. In particular, EDR dependence was found to differ significantly for the thecal sac versus the spinal cord with or without 1-3 millimeter margins. With strong EDR correlation, the most probable relationship among the small-volume dose limits was derived for the spinal cord PRVs. CONCLUSION: An analytical formula linked the most probable pin-point/small isodose volume doses with relatively large isodose volume doses of the spinal cord for spine SBRT. As a result, a small number of dose limits such as Dmax or D(0.35cc) are likely sufficient to surrogate the spinal cord dose tolerance for consistent treatment planning optimization and outcome analysis.
PURPOSE: Doses to small spinal cord isodose volume (such as those ranging from Dmax 0.0 cc to 0.5 cc) as well as to large volumes (such as those ranging from 0.5 cc to 3.0 cc) are critical parameters to guide safe practice of spine SBRT. We here report a mathematical formula that links the most probable dose volume limits together for common spine SBRT cases.Methods and materials: A dose ripple formula parameterized with equivalent dose radius (EDR) was derived to model spinal cord small-volume doses for a spine SBRT treatment. A cohort of spine SBRT cases (n=68), treated with either a robotic x-band linac or a conventional S-band linac, was selected to verify the model predictions. The mean prescription dose was 22± 4 Gy (range, 12-40 Gy) delivered in 2±1 fractions. The mean and median target volume was 39.4±42.5 cc and 30.3 cc (range, 0.24-264.2 cc), respectively. Direct correlations between the spinal cord Dmax and variable spinal cord doses of increasing isodose volumes (ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc) of different planning organ-at-risk volumes (PRVs) were investigated. The PRV structures for the study included the true cord, thecal sac and the true cord plus variable margins ranging from 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm. RESULTS: No direct linear correlation was observed amongst the small volume doses to the spinal cord PRVs. However, strong linear correlations (R2 > 0.96) for all the studied PRVs were observed when correlating EDRs amongst isodose volumes ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc. In particular, EDR dependence was found to differ significantly for the thecal sac versus the spinal cord with or without 1-3 millimeter margins. With strong EDR correlation, the most probable relationship among the small-volume dose limits was derived for the spinal cord PRVs. CONCLUSION: An analytical formula linked the most probable pin-point/small isodose volume doses with relatively large isodose volume doses of the spinal cord for spine SBRT. As a result, a small number of dose limits such as Dmax or D(0.35cc) are likely sufficient to surrogate the spinal cord dose tolerance for consistent treatment planning optimization and outcome analysis.
Authors: A Sahgal; L Ma; J Fowler; V Weinberg; I Gibbs; P C Gerszten; S Ryu; S Soltys; E Chang; C S Wong; D A Larson Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-02
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Laurence D Rhines; Almon S Shiu; James N Yang; Ugur Selek; Ibrahima Gning; Ping Liu; Pamela K Allen; Syed S Azeem; Paul D Brown; Hadley J Sharp; David C Weksberg; Charles S Cleeland; Eric L Chang Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lijun Ma; Arjun Sahgal; Luca Cozzi; Eric Chang; Almon Shiu; Daniel Letourneau; Fang-Fang Yin; Antonella Fogliata; Wolfgang Kaissl; Derek Hyde; Normand J Laperriere; Dennis C Shrieve; David A Larson Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-12
Authors: Matthew Foote; Daniel Letourneau; Derek Hyde; Eric Massicotte; Raja Rampersaud; Michael Fehlings; Charles Fisher; Stephen Lewis; Nancy La Macchia; Eugene Yu; Normand J Laperriere; Arjun Sahgal Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Mark Bilsky; Eric L Chang; Lijun Ma; Yoshiya Yamada; Laurence D Rhines; Daniel Létourneau; Matthew Foote; Eugene Yu; David A Larson; Michael G Fehlings Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-12-24
Authors: Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; D Michael Lovelock; Ennapadam S Venkatraman; Sean Toner; Jared Johnson; Joan Zatcky; Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Samuel Ryu; Jian-Yue Jin; Ryan Jin; Jack Rock; Munther Ajlouni; Benjamin Movsas; Mark Rosenblum; Jae Ho Kim Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Sahgal; D Chou; C Ames; L Ma; K Lamborn; K Huang; C Chuang; A Aiken; P Petti; P Weinstein; D Larson Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-12
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Lijun Ma; Iris Gibbs; Peter C Gerszten; Sam Ryu; Scott Soltys; Vivian Weinberg; Shun Wong; Eric Chang; Jack Fowler; David A Larson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sander Roberti; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Inge M Krul; Florent de Vathaire; Cristina Veres; Ibrahima Diallo; Cécile P M Janus; Berthe M P Aleman; Nicola S Russell; Michael Hauptmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 11.816