Chen-Lin Kang1,2,3, Tsair-Fwu Lee1,4,5, Shan-Ho Chan2, Shyh-Chang Liu3, Jui-Chu Wang6, Cheng-Hsiang Tsai1, Kuan-Cho Liao1, Fu-Min Fang1, Liyun Chang7, Chun-Chieh Huang1,8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Department of Medical Imaging and Radiology, Shu-Zen Junior College of Medicine and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Information Engineering, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Medical Physics and Informatics Laboratory of Electronics Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 5. Biomedical Engineering, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 6. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 7. Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 8. Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated. RESULTS: The translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B. CONCLUSION: The immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B.
PURPOSE: Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated. RESULTS: The translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B. CONCLUSION: The immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B.
Authors: George Voynov; Dwight E Heron; Steven Burton; Jennifer Grandis; Annette Quinn; Robert Ferris; Cihat Ozhasoglu; William Vogel; Jonas Johnson Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-10
Authors: Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Dwight E Heron; Robert L Ferris; Regiane S Andrade; Michael K Gibson; Yong Yang; Cihat Ozhasoglu; Athanassios E Argiris; Jennifer R Grandis; Steven A Burton Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.339
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: Eric F Lartigau; Emmanuelle Tresch; Juliette Thariat; Pierre Graff; Bernard Coche-Dequeant; Karen Benezery; Luis Schiappacasse; Marian Degardin; Pierre-Yves Bondiau; Didier Peiffert; Jean-Louis Lefebvre; Thomas Lacornerie; Andrew Kramar Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Shane Mesko; He Wang; Samuel Tung; Congjun Wang; Dario Pasalic; Bhavana V Chapman; Amy C Moreno; Jay P Reddy; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Clifton D Fuller; William Morrison; Jack Phan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038