Cargando…
Respiratory motion tracking of spine stereotactic radiotherapy in prone position
PURPOSE: The CyberKnife system is a specialized device for non‐coplanar irradiation; however, it possesses the geometric restriction that the beam cannot be irradiated from under the treatment couch. Prone positioning is expected to reduce the dose to normal lung tissue in spinal stereotactic body r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13910 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: The CyberKnife system is a specialized device for non‐coplanar irradiation; however, it possesses the geometric restriction that the beam cannot be irradiated from under the treatment couch. Prone positioning is expected to reduce the dose to normal lung tissue in spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) owing to the efficiency of beam arrangement; however, respiratory motion occurs. Therefore, the Xsight spine prone tracking (XSPT) system is used to reduce the effects of respiratory motion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the motion‐tracking error of the spine in the prone position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all 25 patients who underwent spinal SBRT at our institution between April 2020 and February 2022 using CyberKnife (VSI, version 11.1.0) with the XSPT tracking system were retrospectively analyzed using log files. The tumor motion, correlation, and prediction errors for each patient were examined. Furthermore, to assess the potential relationships between the parameters, the relationships between the tumor‐motion amplitudes and correlation or prediction errors were investigated using linear regression. RESULTS: The tumor‐motion amplitudes in each direction were as follows: superior–inferior (SI), 0.51 ± 0.39 mm; left–right (LR), 0.37 ± 0.29 mm; and anterior–posterior (AP), 3.43 ± 1.63 mm. The overall mean correlation and prediction errors were 0.66 ± 0.48 mm and 0.06 ± 0.07 mm, respectively. The prediction errors were strongly correlated with the tumor‐motion amplitudes, whereas the correlation errors were not. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the correlation error of spinal SBRT in the prone position is sufficiently small to be independent of the tumor‐motion amplitude. Furthermore, the prediction error is small, contributing only slightly to the tracking error. These findings will improve the understanding of how to compensate for respiratory‐motion uncertainty in the prone position. |
---|