BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the time interval between planning imaging and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivery on tumor volumes and spatial anatomic displacements of brain metastases (BM). METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with BM treated with SRS over a 3-year period were evaluated. Only patients who underwent an institutionally standardized diagnostic MRI (MRI-1) and a treatment planning MRI (MRI-2) were included. The impact of histology, inter-scan time interval, lesion location, tumor volume, and diameter were evaluated on final lesion diameter, volume, anatomic displacement, and ultimate need for change in management (ie, expanding margins, rescanning). RESULTS: 101 patients (531 lesions) with a median inter-scan time interval of 8 days (range: 1-42 days) met the inclusion criteria. The median percentage increase in BM diameter and volume were 9.5% (IQR: 2.25%-24.0%) and 20% (IQR: 0.7%-66.7%). Overall, 147 lesions (27.7%) in 57 patients (56.4%) required a change in management. There was a statistically significant relationship between initial tumor diameter (cm) and change in management (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.93-3.75; P < .001). Each day between MRI-1 and MRI-2 was associated with a change in management with an OR of 1.05 (95% CI: 1.03-1.07; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in tumor diameter, volume, and spatial position occur as a function of time. Planning imaging for SRS is recommended to occur in close temporal proximity to treatment; for those with delays, a larger setup margin may need to be used to ensure tumor coverage and account for positional changes.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the time interval between planning imaging and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivery on tumor volumes and spatial anatomic displacements of brain metastases (BM). METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with BM treated with SRS over a 3-year period were evaluated. Only patients who underwent an institutionally standardized diagnostic MRI (MRI-1) and a treatment planning MRI (MRI-2) were included. The impact of histology, inter-scan time interval, lesion location, tumor volume, and diameter were evaluated on final lesion diameter, volume, anatomic displacement, and ultimate need for change in management (ie, expanding margins, rescanning). RESULTS: 101 patients (531 lesions) with a median inter-scan time interval of 8 days (range: 1-42 days) met the inclusion criteria. The median percentage increase in BM diameter and volume were 9.5% (IQR: 2.25%-24.0%) and 20% (IQR: 0.7%-66.7%). Overall, 147 lesions (27.7%) in 57 patients (56.4%) required a change in management. There was a statistically significant relationship between initial tumor diameter (cm) and change in management (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.93-3.75; P < .001). Each day between MRI-1 and MRI-2 was associated with a change in management with an OR of 1.05 (95% CI: 1.03-1.07; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in tumor diameter, volume, and spatial position occur as a function of time. Planning imaging for SRS is recommended to occur in close temporal proximity to treatment; for those with delays, a larger setup margin may need to be used to ensure tumor coverage and account for positional changes.
Authors: Christian P Karger; Peter Hipp; Marcus Henze; Gernot Echner; Angelika Höss; Lothar Schad; Günther H Hartmann Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2003-01-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Zachary A Seymour; Shannon E Fogh; Sarah K Westcott; Steve Braunstein; David A Larson; Igor J Barani; Jean Nakamura; Penny K Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alison L Salkeld; Eric K C Hau; Najmun Nahar; Jonathan R Sykes; Wei Wang; David I Thwaites Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: John P Kirkpatrick; Zhiheng Wang; John H Sampson; Frances McSherry; James E Herndon; Karen J Allen; Eileen Duffy; Jenny K Hoang; Zheng Chang; David S Yoo; Chris R Kelsey; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John H Suh; Rupesh Kotecha; Samuel T Chao; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Arjun Sahgal; Eric L Chang Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Eline D Hessen; Laurens D van Buuren; Jasper A Nijkamp; Kim C de Vries; Wai Kong Mok; Luc Dewit; Anke M van Mourik; Alejandro Berlin; Uulke A van der Heide; Gerben R Borst Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-01-26
Authors: Tugce Kutuk; Rupesh Kotecha; Ranjini Tolakanahalli; D Jay J Wieczorek; Yongsook C Lee; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Matthew D Hall; Michael W McDermott; Haley Appel; Alonso N Gutierrez; Minesh P Mehta; Martin C Tom Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 6.575