Display options
Cite
Hadj Henni A, Gensanne D, Roge M, et al. Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):168doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5.
Hadj Henni, A., Gensanne, D., Roge, M., Hanzen, C., Bulot, G., Colard, E., & Thureau, S. (2021). Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time. Radiation oncology (London, England), 16(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5
Hadj Henni, Ahmed, et al. "Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time." Radiation oncology (London, England) vol. 16,1 (2021): 168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5
Hadj Henni A, Gensanne D, Roge M, Hanzen C, Bulot G, Colard E, Thureau S. Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time. Radiat Oncol. 2021 Aug 30;16(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5. PMID: 34461953; PMCID: PMC8404277.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Radiat Oncol. 2021 Aug 30;16(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5.

Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time.

Radiation oncology (London, England)

Ahmed Hadj Henni, David Gensanne, Maximilien Roge, Chantal Hanzen, Guillaume Bulot, Elyse Colard, Sebastien Thureau

Affiliations

  1. Centre Henri Becquerel, 1 Rue d'Amiens, 76000, Rouen, France. [email protected].
  2. Centre Henri Becquerel, 1 Rue d'Amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.

PMID: 34461953 PMCID: PMC8404277 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01892-5

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the amplitude of translational and rotational movements occurring during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of spinal metastases in two different positioning devices. The relevance of intra-fractional imaging and the influence of treatment time were evaluated.

METHODS: Twenty patients were treated in the supine position either (1) on a body vacuum cushion with arms raised and resting on a clegecel or (2) on an integrated SBRT solution consisting of a SBRT table top, an Orfit™ AIO system, and a vacuum cushion. Alignments between the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the planning computed tomography allowed corrections of inter- and intra-fraction positional shifts using a 6D table. The absolute values of the translational and rotational setup errors obtained for 329 CBCT were recorded. The translational 3D vector, the maximum angle, and the characteristic times of the treatment fractions were calculated.

RESULTS: An improvement in the mean (SD) inter-fraction 3D vector (mm) from 7.8 (5.9) to 5.9 (3.8) was obtained by changing the fixation devices from (1) to (2) (p < 0.038). The maximum angles were less than 2° for a total of 87% for (1) and 96% for (2). The mean (SD) of the intra-fraction 3D vectors (mm) was lower for the new 1.1 (0.8) positioning fixation (2) compared to the old one (1) 1.7 (1.7) (p = 0.004). The angular corrections applied in the intra-fraction were on average very low (0.4°) and similar between the two systems. A strong correlation was found between the 3D displacement vector and the fraction time for (1) and (2) with regression coefficients of 0.408 (0.262-0.555, 95% CI) and 0.069 (0.010-0.128, 95% CI), respectively. An accuracy of 1 mm would require intra-fraction imaging every 5 min for both systems. If the expected accuracy was 2 mm, then only system (2) could avoid intra-fractional imaging.

CONCLUSIONS: This study allowed us to evaluate setup errors of two immobilization devices for spine SBRT. The association of inter- and intra-fraction imaging with 6D repositioning of a patient is inevitable. The correlation between treatment time and corrections to be applied encourages us to move toward imaging modalities which allow a reduction in fraction time.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: CBCT; Inter-fraction; Intra-fraction; SBRT; Spinal; Treatment time

References

  1. Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):1112-8 - PubMed
  2. PLoS One. 2017 May 19;12(5):e0177798 - PubMed
  3. Med Phys. 2014 Mar;41(3):031709 - PubMed
  4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Dec 1;87(5):911-6 - PubMed
  5. Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2457-65 - PubMed
  6. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2006 Winter;7(1):97-104 - PubMed
  7. Cancer Med. 2019 Oct;8(14):6176-6184 - PubMed
  8. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e555-62 - PubMed
  9. Radiother Oncol. 2020 Apr;145:21-29 - PubMed
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Apr 1;94(5):1154-62 - PubMed
  11. BJR Open. 2019 Aug 29;1(1):20190028 - PubMed
  12. Radiother Oncol. 2007 Jul;84(1):56-63 - PubMed
  13. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 May 1;59(1):242-9 - PubMed
  14. Cancer Radiother. 2017 Jun;21(4):276-285 - PubMed
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):e597-605 - PubMed
  16. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016 Feb;60(1):112-8 - PubMed
  17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Nov 15;75(4):1261-5 - PubMed
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 15;71(4):1261-71 - PubMed
  19. Phys Med. 2016 Nov;32(11):1405-1414 - PubMed
  20. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 May 08;17(3):180-189 - PubMed
  21. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Mar;26(3):299-306 - PubMed
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Oct 1;84(2):520-6 - PubMed
  23. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Aug;39(8):1576-1581 - PubMed
  24. Acta Oncol. 2016 Jun;55(6):795-8 - PubMed
  25. Radiother Oncol. 2010 Apr;95(1):116-21 - PubMed
  26. Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101 - PubMed

Publication Types