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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dutta, Debnarayan, Kataki, Kaushik Jagannath, George, Shibu, Reddy, Sruthi K., Sashidharan, Ajay, Kannan, Rajesh, Madhavan, Ram, Nair, Haridas, Tatineni, Tushar, Holla, Raghavendra
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