Cargando…

Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife

PURPOSE: Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a spi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Chen-Lin, Lee, Tsair-Fwu, Chan, Shan-Ho, Liu, Shyh-Chang, Wang, Jui-Chu, Tsai, Cheng-Hsiang, Liao, Kuan-Cho, Fang, Fu-Min, Chang, Liyun, Huang, Chun-Chieh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7802594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447079
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S283746
_version_ 1783635791076917248
author Kang, Chen-Lin
Lee, Tsair-Fwu
Chan, Shan-Ho
Liu, Shyh-Chang
Wang, Jui-Chu
Tsai, Cheng-Hsiang
Liao, Kuan-Cho
Fang, Fu-Min
Chang, Liyun
Huang, Chun-Chieh
author_facet Kang, Chen-Lin
Lee, Tsair-Fwu
Chan, Shan-Ho
Liu, Shyh-Chang
Wang, Jui-Chu
Tsai, Cheng-Hsiang
Liao, Kuan-Cho
Fang, Fu-Min
Chang, Liyun
Huang, Chun-Chieh
author_sort Kang, Chen-Lin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated. RESULTS: The translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B. CONCLUSION: The immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7802594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78025942021-01-13 Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife Kang, Chen-Lin Lee, Tsair-Fwu Chan, Shan-Ho Liu, Shyh-Chang Wang, Jui-Chu Tsai, Cheng-Hsiang Liao, Kuan-Cho Fang, Fu-Min Chang, Liyun Huang, Chun-Chieh Cancer Manag Res Original Research PURPOSE: Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated. RESULTS: The translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B. CONCLUSION: The immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B. Dove 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7802594/ /pubmed/33447079 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S283746 Text en © 2020 Kang et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Kang, Chen-Lin
Lee, Tsair-Fwu
Chan, Shan-Ho
Liu, Shyh-Chang
Wang, Jui-Chu
Tsai, Cheng-Hsiang
Liao, Kuan-Cho
Fang, Fu-Min
Chang, Liyun
Huang, Chun-Chieh
Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title_full Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title_fullStr Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title_short Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife
title_sort comparison of intrafractional motion in head and neck cancer between two immobilization methods during stereotactic ablative radiation therapy by cyberknife
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7802594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447079
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S283746
work_keys_str_mv AT kangchenlin comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT leetsairfwu comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT chanshanho comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT liushyhchang comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT wangjuichu comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT tsaichenghsiang comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT liaokuancho comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT fangfumin comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT changliyun comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife
AT huangchunchieh comparisonofintrafractionalmotioninheadandneckcancerbetweentwoimmobilizationmethodsduringstereotacticablativeradiationtherapybycyberknife