Myriam Khadige1, Julia Salleron2, Vincent Marchesi3, Guillaume Oldrini4,5, Didier Peiffert1, Véronique Beckendorf1. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 2. Data Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 3. Department of Medical physics, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 4. Department of Radiology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 5. CRAN, UMR 7039, Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CyberKnife® stereotactic radiotherapy allows for minimally invasive treatment with satisfactory results in patients with inoperable primary or metastatic lung cancer. The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing the probability of local control. METHODS: Ninety-five patients (100 lung tumors) treated between January and December 2013 at our department by SBRT (stereotactic body radiation therapy) using CyberKnife® were included in the study. There were 71 stage T1 or T2 primary tumors and 29 secondary tumors. The tracking methods were as follow: fiducial markers with Synchrony® in 50 cases (gold seeds in 35, coils in 15 cases), spine with 4D-CT and Xsight® Spine in 43 cases, and direct viewing by Xsight® Lung in 7 cases. The methods were allocated according to the characteristics of each target. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 24 months, the probability of local control at 24 months was 88%. The probability of local control differed according to the size of the target (92% for tumors ≤35 mm and 54% for tumors >35 mm: P=0.013) and according to the distance of the fiducial markers in relation to the target (95% when <50 mm and 69% when ≥50 mm: P=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The best results were obtained with small lesions. With Synchrony®, the distance of the target relative to the fiducial markers should be less than 50 mm. Gold seeds are recommended, although coils may be used instead of gold seeds. The number of fiducial markers did not have a significant impact on the probability of local control. With an appropriate tracking method, stereotactic radiotherapy is an efficient treatment for stage I lung cancer and lung oligometastases.
BACKGROUND: CyberKnife® stereotactic radiotherapy allows for minimally invasive treatment with satisfactory results in patients with inoperable primary or metastatic lung cancer. The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing the probability of local control. METHODS: Ninety-five patients (100 lung tumors) treated between January and December 2013 at our department by SBRT (stereotactic body radiation therapy) using CyberKnife® were included in the study. There were 71 stage T1 or T2 primary tumors and 29 secondary tumors. The tracking methods were as follow: fiducial markers with Synchrony® in 50 cases (gold seeds in 35, coils in 15 cases), spine with 4D-CT and Xsight® Spine in 43 cases, and direct viewing by Xsight® Lung in 7 cases. The methods were allocated according to the characteristics of each target. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 24 months, the probability of local control at 24 months was 88%. The probability of local control differed according to the size of the target (92% for tumors ≤35 mm and 54% for tumors >35 mm: P=0.013) and according to the distance of the fiducial markers in relation to the target (95% when <50 mm and 69% when ≥50 mm: P=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The best results were obtained with small lesions. With Synchrony®, the distance of the target relative to the fiducial markers should be less than 50 mm. Gold seeds are recommended, although coils may be used instead of gold seeds. The number of fiducial markers did not have a significant impact on the probability of local control. With an appropriate tracking method, stereotactic radiotherapy is an efficient treatment for stage I lung cancer and lung oligometastases.
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: Martina Descovich; Christopher McGuinness; Danita Kannarunimit; Josephine Chen; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Jean Pouliot; Norbert Kased; Alexander R Gottschalk; Sue S Yom Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Noëlle C van der Voort van Zyp; Jean-Briac Prévost; Mischa S Hoogeman; John Praag; Bronno van der Holt; Peter C Levendag; Robertus J van Klaveren; Peter Pattynama; Joost J Nuyttens Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Lech Papiez; Ronald McGarry; Laura Likes; Colleen DesRosiers; Stephanie Frost; Mark Williams Journal: Chest Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ki Man Ku; Bing Lam; Vincent W C Wu; Kwok Ting Chan; Chloe Y Y Chan; H C Cheng; Kamy M Y Yuen; Jing Cai Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 5.738