PURPOSE: Recurrent or previously irradiated head and neck cancers (HNC) are therapeutically challenging and may benefit from high-dose, highly accurate radiation techniques, such as stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Here, we compare set-up and positioning accuracy across HNC subsites to further optimize the treatment process and planning target volume (PTV) margin recommendations for head and neck SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We prospectively collected data on 405 treatment fractions across 79 patients treated with SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated HNC. First, interfractional error was determined by comparing ExacTrac x-ray to the treatment plan. Patients were then shifted and residual error was measured with repeat x-ray. Next, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was compared with ExacTrac for positioning agreement, and final shifts were applied. Lastly, intrafractional error was measured with x-ray before each arc. Results were stratified by treatment site into skull base, neck/parotid, and mucosal. RESULTS: Most patients (66.7%) were treated to 45 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 21-47.5 Gy in 3-5 fractions). The initial mean ± standard deviation interfractional errors were -0.2 ± 1.4 mm (anteroposterior), 0.2 ± 1.8 mm (craniocaudal), and -0.1 ± 1.7 mm (left-right). Interfractional 3-dimensional vector error was 2.48 ± 1.44, with skull base significantly lower than other sites (2.22 vs 2.77; P = .0016). All interfractional errors were corrected to within 1.3 mm and 1.8°. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac to within 3.6 mm and 3.4°. CBCT disagreements and intrafractional errors of >1 mm or >1° occurred at significantly lower rates in skull base sites (CBCT: 16.4% vs 50.0% neck, 52.0% mucosal, P < .0001; intrafractional: 22.0% vs 48.7% all others, P < .0001). Final PTVs were 1.5 mm (skull base), 2.0 mm (neck/parotid), and 1.8 mm (mucosal). CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck SABR PTV margins should be optimized by target site. PTV margins of 1.5 to 2 mm may be sufficient in the skull base, whereas 2 to 2.5 mm may be necessary for neck and mucosal targets. When using ExacTrac, skull base sites show significantly fewer uncertainties throughout the treatment process, but neck/mucosal targets may require the addition of CBCT to account for positioning errors and internal organ motion.
PURPOSE: Recurrent or previously irradiated head and neck cancers (HNC) are therapeutically challenging and may benefit from high-dose, highly accurate radiation techniques, such as stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Here, we compare set-up and positioning accuracy across HNC subsites to further optimize the treatment process and planning target volume (PTV) margin recommendations for head and neck SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We prospectively collected data on 405 treatment fractions across 79 patients treated with SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated HNC. First, interfractional error was determined by comparing ExacTrac x-ray to the treatment plan. Patients were then shifted and residual error was measured with repeat x-ray. Next, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was compared with ExacTrac for positioning agreement, and final shifts were applied. Lastly, intrafractional error was measured with x-ray before each arc. Results were stratified by treatment site into skull base, neck/parotid, and mucosal. RESULTS: Most patients (66.7%) were treated to 45 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 21-47.5 Gy in 3-5 fractions). The initial mean ± standard deviation interfractional errors were -0.2 ± 1.4 mm (anteroposterior), 0.2 ± 1.8 mm (craniocaudal), and -0.1 ± 1.7 mm (left-right). Interfractional 3-dimensional vector error was 2.48 ± 1.44, with skull base significantly lower than other sites (2.22 vs 2.77; P = .0016). All interfractional errors were corrected to within 1.3 mm and 1.8°. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac to within 3.6 mm and 3.4°. CBCT disagreements and intrafractional errors of >1 mm or >1° occurred at significantly lower rates in skull base sites (CBCT: 16.4% vs 50.0% neck, 52.0% mucosal, P < .0001; intrafractional: 22.0% vs 48.7% all others, P < .0001). Final PTVs were 1.5 mm (skull base), 2.0 mm (neck/parotid), and 1.8 mm (mucosal). CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck SABRPTV margins should be optimized by target site. PTV margins of 1.5 to 2 mm may be sufficient in the skull base, whereas 2 to 2.5 mm may be necessary for neck and mucosal targets. When using ExacTrac, skull base sites show significantly fewer uncertainties throughout the treatment process, but neck/mucosal targets may require the addition of CBCT to account for positioning errors and internal organ motion.
Authors: Jay S Cooper; Qiang Zhang; Thomas F Pajak; Arlene A Forastiere; John Jacobs; Scott B Saxman; Julie A Kish; Harold E Kim; Anthony J Cmelak; Marvin Rotman; Robert Lustig; John F Ensley; Wade Thorstad; Christopher J Schultz; Sue S Yom; K Kian Ang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John A Vargo; Robert L Ferris; James Ohr; David A Clump; Kara S Davis; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Seungwon Kim; Jonas T Johnson; Julie E Bauman; Michael K Gibson; Barton F Branstetter; Dwight E Heron Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sulsal Haque; Vidhya Karivedu; Muhammed K Riaz; David Choi; Logan Roof; Sarah Z Hassan; Zheng Zhu; Roman Jandarov; Vinita Takiar; Alice Tang; Trisha Wise-Draper Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Erik Tryggestad; Matthew Christian; Eric Ford; Carmen Kut; Yi Le; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Danny Y Song; Lawrence Kleinberg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Corey J Langer; Jonathan Harris; Eric M Horwitz; Nicos Nicolaou; Merrill Kies; Walter Curran; Stuart Wong; Kian Ang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adam S Garden; Jonathan Harris; Andy Trotti; Christopher U Jones; Luis Carrascosa; Jonathan D Cheng; Sharon S Spencer; Arlene Forastiere; Randal S Weber; K Kian Ang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jun Li; Wenyin Shi; David Andrews; Maria Werner-Wasik; Bo Lu; Yan Yu; Adam Dicker; Haisong Liu Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-12-14
Authors: Luke Stanisce; Yekaterina Koshkareva; Qianyi Xu; Ashish Patel; Christian Squillante; Nadir Ahmad; Kumar Rajagopalan; Gregory J Kubicek Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Alexander F Bagley; Adam S Garden; Jay P Reddy; Amy C Moreno; Steven J Frank; David I Rosenthal; William H Morrison; Gary Brandon Gunn; Clifton D Fuller; Shalin J Shah; Renata Ferrarotto; Erich M Sturgis; Neil D Gross; Jack Phan Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Michael D Chuong; John M Bryant; Roberto Herrera; James McCulloch; Jessika Contreras; Rupesh Kotecha; Tino Romaguera; Diane Alvarez; Matthew D Hall; Muni Rubens; Minesh P Mehta; Adeel Kaiser; Martin Tom; Alonso N Gutierrez; Kathryn E Mittauer Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Muhammad Shahid Iqbal; Nick West; Neil Richmond; Josef Kovarik; Isabel Gray; Nick Willis; David Morgan; Gozde Yazici; Mustafa Cengiz; Vinidh Paleri; Charles Kelly Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.039