BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Single-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an effective treatment for early-stage lung cancer, but concerns remain about the accurate delivery of SABR in a single session. We evaluated the delivery of single-fraction lung SABR using magnetic resonance (MR)-guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An MR-simulation was performed in 17 patients, seven of whom were found to be unsuitable, largely due to unreliable tracking of small tumors. Ten patients underwent single-fraction SABR to 34 Gy on a 0.35 T MR-linac system, with online plan adaptation. Gated breath-hold SABR was delivered using a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 5 mm, and a 3 mm gating window. Continuous MR-tracking of the gross tumor volume (GTVt) was performed in sagittal plane, with visual patient feedback provided using an in-room monitor. The real-time MR images were analyzed to determine precision and efficiency of gated delivery. RESULTS: All but one patient completed treatment in a single session. The median total in-room procedure was 120 min, with a median SABR delivery session of 39 min. Review of 7.4 h of cine-MR imaging revealed a mean GTVt coverage by the PTV during beam-on of 99.6%. Breath-hold patterns were variable, resulting in a mean duty cycle efficiency of 51%, but GTVt coverage was not influenced due to real-time MR-guidance. On-table adaptation improved PTV coverage, but had limited impact on GTV doses. CONCLUSIONS: Single-fraction gated SABR of lung tumors can be performed with high precision using MR-guidance. However, improvements are needed to ensure MR-tracking of small tumors, and to reduce treatment times.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Single-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an effective treatment for early-stage lung cancer, but concerns remain about the accurate delivery of SABR in a single session. We evaluated the delivery of single-fraction lung SABR using magnetic resonance (MR)-guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An MR-simulation was performed in 17 patients, seven of whom were found to be unsuitable, largely due to unreliable tracking of small tumors. Ten patients underwent single-fraction SABR to 34 Gy on a 0.35 T MR-linac system, with online plan adaptation. Gated breath-hold SABR was delivered using a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 5 mm, and a 3 mm gating window. Continuous MR-tracking of the gross tumor volume (GTVt) was performed in sagittal plane, with visual patient feedback provided using an in-room monitor. The real-time MR images were analyzed to determine precision and efficiency of gated delivery. RESULTS: All but one patient completed treatment in a single session. The median total in-room procedure was 120 min, with a median SABR delivery session of 39 min. Review of 7.4 h of cine-MR imaging revealed a mean GTVt coverage by the PTV during beam-on of 99.6%. Breath-hold patterns were variable, resulting in a mean duty cycle efficiency of 51%, but GTVt coverage was not influenced due to real-time MR-guidance. On-table adaptation improved PTV coverage, but had limited impact on GTV doses. CONCLUSIONS: Single-fraction gated SABR of lung tumors can be performed with high precision using MR-guidance. However, improvements are needed to ensure MR-tracking of small tumors, and to reduce treatment times.
Authors: Nicolas Peguret; Max Dahele; Johan P Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: P E Postmus; K M Kerr; M Oudkerk; S Senan; D A Waller; J Vansteenkiste; C Escriu; S Peters Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: S Siva; K Kirby; H Caine; D Pham; T Kron; L Te Marvelde; D Whalley; M J Stevens; F Foroudi; M MacManus; D Ball; T Eade Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: David A Palma; Robert Olson; Stephen Harrow; Stewart Gaede; Alexander V Louie; Cornelis Haasbeek; Liam Mulroy; Michael Lock; George B Rodrigues; Brian P Yaremko; Devin Schellenberg; Belal Ahmad; Gwendolyn Griffioen; Sashendra Senthi; Anand Swaminath; Neil Kopek; Mitchell Liu; Karen Moore; Suzanne Currie; Glenn S Bauman; Andrew Warner; Suresh Senan Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gregory M M Videtic; Chen Hu; Anurag K Singh; Joe Y Chang; William Parker; Kenneth R Olivier; Steven E Schild; Ritsuko Komaki; James J Urbanic; Robert D Timmerman; Hak Choy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Colien Hazelaar; Max Dahele; Hassan Mostafavi; Lineke van der Weide; Ben Slotman; Wilko Verbakel Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Paul J Keall; Caterina Brighi; Carri Glide-Hurst; Gary Liney; Paul Z Y Liu; Suzanne Lydiard; Chiara Paganelli; Trang Pham; Shanshan Shan; Alison C Tree; Uulke A van der Heide; David E J Waddington; Brendan Whelan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 65.011
Authors: Sebastian Regnery; Carolin Buchele; Fabian Weykamp; Moritz Pohl; Philipp Hoegen; Tanja Eichkorn; Thomas Held; Jonas Ristau; Carolin Rippke; Laila König; Michael Thomas; Hauke Winter; Sebastian Adeberg; Jürgen Debus; Sebastian Klüter; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.244