Cargando…
Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy
BACKGROUND: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785839/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33249803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2020.00472 |
_version_ | 1783632507836563456 |
---|---|
author | Dutta, Debnarayan Kataki, Kaushik Jagannath George, Shibu Reddy, Sruthi K. Sashidharan, Ajay Kannan, Rajesh Madhavan, Ram Nair, Haridas Tatineni, Tushar Holla, Raghavendra |
author_facet | Dutta, Debnarayan Kataki, Kaushik Jagannath George, Shibu Reddy, Sruthi K. Sashidharan, Ajay Kannan, Rajesh Madhavan, Ram Nair, Haridas Tatineni, Tushar Holla, Raghavendra |
author_sort | Dutta, Debnarayan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. RESULTS: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24 (67%), “fair” in 4 (11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2 (100%), 4/5 (80%), and 24/27 (89%), respectively (p=0.001). Child-Pugh score (p=0.080), performance status (PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve” (p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time (p=0.055), recovery time (p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications (p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved (p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort (p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively (p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients (72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2 (6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care” (2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient (3%) admitted for hemothorax. CONCLUSION: Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7785839 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77858392021-01-13 Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy Dutta, Debnarayan Kataki, Kaushik Jagannath George, Shibu Reddy, Sruthi K. Sashidharan, Ajay Kannan, Rajesh Madhavan, Ram Nair, Haridas Tatineni, Tushar Holla, Raghavendra Radiat Oncol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. RESULTS: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24 (67%), “fair” in 4 (11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2 (100%), 4/5 (80%), and 24/27 (89%), respectively (p=0.001). Child-Pugh score (p=0.080), performance status (PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve” (p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time (p=0.055), recovery time (p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications (p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved (p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort (p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively (p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients (72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2 (6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care” (2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient (3%) admitted for hemothorax. CONCLUSION: Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications. The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology 2020-12 2020-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7785839/ /pubmed/33249803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2020.00472 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dutta, Debnarayan Kataki, Kaushik Jagannath George, Shibu Reddy, Sruthi K. Sashidharan, Ajay Kannan, Rajesh Madhavan, Ram Nair, Haridas Tatineni, Tushar Holla, Raghavendra Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title | Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title_full | Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title_fullStr | Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title_short | Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
title_sort | prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver cyberknife stereotactic body radiotherapy |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785839/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33249803 http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2020.00472 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duttadebnarayan prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT katakikaushikjagannath prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT georgeshibu prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT reddysruthik prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT sashidharanajay prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT kannanrajesh prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT madhavanram prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT nairharidas prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT tatinenitushar prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy AT hollaraghavendra prospectiveevaluationoffiducialmarkerplacementqualityandtoxicityinlivercyberknifestereotacticbodyradiotherapy |