Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Positional uncertainties of cervical and upper thoracic spine in stereotactic body radiotherapy with thermoplastic mask immobilization

  • Jeon, Seung Hyuck (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jin Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.12.29
  • Accepted : 2018.03.07
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate positional uncertainty and its correlation with clinical parameters in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using thermoplastic mask (TM) immobilization. Materials and Methods: A total of 21 patients who underwent spine SBRT for cervical or upper thoracic spinal lesions were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with image guidance using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 4 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) positional correction. Initial, pre-treatment, and post-treatment CBCTs were analyzed. Setup error (SE), pre-treatment residual error (preRE), post-treatment residual error (postRE), intrafraction motion before treatment (IM1), and intrafraction motion during treatment (IM2) were determined from 6 DoF manual rigid registration. Results: The three-dimensional (3D) magnitudes of translational uncertainties (mean ${\pm}$ 2 standard deviation) were $3.7{\pm}3.5mm$ (SE), $0.9{\pm}0.9mm$ (preRE), $1.2{\pm}1.5mm$ (postRE), $1.4{\pm}2.4mm$ (IM1), and $0.9{\pm}1.0mm$ (IM2), and average angular differences were $1.1^{\circ}{\pm}1.2^{\circ}$ (SE), $0.9^{\circ}{\pm}1.1^{\circ}$ (preRE), $0.9^{\circ}{\pm}1.1^{\circ}$ (postRE), $0.6^{\circ}{\pm}0.9^{\circ}$ (IM1), and $0.5^{\circ}{\pm}0.5^{\circ}$ (IM2). The 3D magnitude of SE, preRE, postRE, IM1, and IM2 exceeded 2 mm in 18, 0, 3, 3, and 1 patients, respectively. No association were found between all positional uncertainties and body mass index, pain score, and treatment location (p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney test). There was a tendency of intrafraction motion to increase with overall treatment time; however, the correlation was not statistically significant (p > 0.05, Spearman rank correlation test). Conclusion: In spine SBRT using TM immobilization, CBCT and 4 DoF alignment correction, a minimum residual translational uncertainty was 2 mm. Shortening overall treatment time and 6 DoF positional correction may further reduce positional uncertainties.

Keywords

References

  1. Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N, Dennis K, Tsao M, Lutz S. Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012;24:112-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.11.004
  2. Greco C, Pares O, Pimentel N, et al. Spinal metastases: from conventional fractionated radiotherapy to single-dose SBRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2015;20:454-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2015.03.004
  3. Ryu S, Yoon H, Stessin A, Gutman F, Rosiello A, Davis R. Contemporary treatment with radiosurgery for spine metastasis and spinal cord compression in 2015. Radiat Oncol J 2015;33:1-11. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2015.33.1.1
  4. Ryu S, Pugh SL, Gerszten PC, et al. RTOG 0631 phase 2/3 study of image guided stereotactic radiosurgery for localized (1-3) spine metastases: phase 2 results. Pract Radiat Oncol 2014;4:76-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2013.05.001
  5. Grimm J, Sahgal A, Soltys SG, et al. Estimated risk level of unified stereotactic body radiation therapy dose tolerance limits for spinal cord. Semin Radiat Oncol 2016;26:165-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2015.11.010
  6. Qi XS, Hu AY, Lee SP, et al. Assessment of interfraction patient setup for head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy using multiple computed tomography-based image guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;86:432-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.022
  7. Tryggestad E, Christian M, Ford E, et al. Inter- and intrafraction patient positioning uncertainties for intracranial radiotherapy: a study of four frameless, thermoplastic mask-based immobilization strategies using daily cone-beam CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:281-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.022
  8. van Kranen S, Mencarelli A, van Beek S, Rasch C, van Herk M, Sonke JJ. Adaptive radiotherapy with an average anatomy model: evaluation and quantification of residual deformations in head and neck cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2013;109:463-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.007
  9. Jeon W, Wu HG, Song SH, Kim JI. Radial displacement of clinical target volume in node negative head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2012;30:36-42. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2012.30.1.36
  10. Gevaert T, Verellen D, Tournel K, et al. Setup accuracy of the Novalis ExacTrac 6DOF system for frameless radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:1627-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.052
  11. Ohtakara K, Hayashi S, Tanaka H, et al. Clinical comparison of positional accuracy and stability between dedicated versus conventional masks for immobilization in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy using 6-degree-of-freedom image guidance system-integrated platform. Radiother Oncol 2012;102:198-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.012
  12. Murphy MJ, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al. Patterns of patient movement during frameless image-guided radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:1400-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04597-2
  13. Rosenfelder NA, Corsini L, McNair H, et al. Comparison of setup accuracy and intrafraction motion using stereotactic frame versus 3-point thermoplastic mask-based immobilization for fractionated cranial image guided radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013;3:171-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2012.06.004
  14. Ramakrishna N, Rosca F, Friesen S, Tezcanli E, Zygmanszki P, Hacker F. A clinical comparison of patient setup and intrafraction motion using frame-based radiosurgery versus a frameless image-guided radiosurgery system for intracranial lesions. Radiother Oncol 2010;95:109-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.030
  15. Cox BW, Spratt DE, Lovelock M, et al. International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium consensus guidelines for target volume definition in spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:e597-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.009
  16. Li W, Sahgal A, Foote M, Millar BA, Jaffray DA, Letourneau D. Impact of immobilization on intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:520-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.039
  17. Sapkaroski D, Osborne C, Knight KA. A review of stereotactic body radiotherapy: is volumetric modulated arc therapy the answer? J Med Radiat Sci 2015;62:142-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.108