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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |