Cargando…

Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare intrafractional motion using two commercial non‐invasive immobilization systems for linac‐based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) under guidance with a surface‐guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system. MATERIALS/METHODS: Twenty‐one patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Chunhui, Amini, Arya, Wong, Jeffrey Y.C., Liang, Jieming, Qing, Kun, Watkins, W. Tyler, Zhang, Sean, Williams, Terence M., Liu, An
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195026/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13613
_version_ 1784726876390948864
author Han, Chunhui
Amini, Arya
Wong, Jeffrey Y.C.
Liang, Jieming
Qing, Kun
Watkins, W. Tyler
Zhang, Sean
Williams, Terence M.
Liu, An
author_facet Han, Chunhui
Amini, Arya
Wong, Jeffrey Y.C.
Liang, Jieming
Qing, Kun
Watkins, W. Tyler
Zhang, Sean
Williams, Terence M.
Liu, An
author_sort Han, Chunhui
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare intrafractional motion using two commercial non‐invasive immobilization systems for linac‐based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) under guidance with a surface‐guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system. MATERIALS/METHODS: Twenty‐one patients who received intracranial SRS were retrospectively selected. Ten patients were immobilized with a vacuum fixation biteplate system, while 11 patients were immobilized with an open‐face mask system. A setup margin of 1 mm was used in treatment planning. Real‐time surface motion data in 37 treatment fractions using the vacuum fixation system and 44 fractions using the open‐face mask were recorded by an SGRT system. Variances of intrafractional motion along three translational directions and three rotational directions were compared between the two immobilization techniques with Levene's tests. Intrafractional motion variation over time during treatments was also evaluated. RESULTS: Using the vacuum fixation system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were 0.01 ± 0.18 mm, ‐0.06 ± 0.30 mm, and  0.02 ± 0.26 mm in the anterior–posterior (AP), superior–inferior (SI), and left–right (LR) directions, and ‐0.02 ± 0.19°, ‐0.01 ± 0.13°, and 0.01 ± 0.13° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively; using the open‐face mask system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were ‐0.06 ± 0.20 mm, ‐0.02 ± 0.35 mm, and 0.01 ± 0.40 mm in the AP, SI, and LR directions, and were 0.05 ± 0.23°, 0.02 ± 0.21°, and 0.00 ± 0.16° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively. There was a significant increase in intrafractional motion variance over time during treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients with the vacuum fixation system had significantly smaller intrafractional motion variation compared to those with the open‐face mask system. Using intrafractional motion techniques such as surface imaging system is recommended to minimize dose deviation due to intrafractional motion. The increase in intrafractional motion over time indicates clinical benefits with shorter treatment time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9195026
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91950262022-06-21 Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery Han, Chunhui Amini, Arya Wong, Jeffrey Y.C. Liang, Jieming Qing, Kun Watkins, W. Tyler Zhang, Sean Williams, Terence M. Liu, An J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare intrafractional motion using two commercial non‐invasive immobilization systems for linac‐based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) under guidance with a surface‐guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system. MATERIALS/METHODS: Twenty‐one patients who received intracranial SRS were retrospectively selected. Ten patients were immobilized with a vacuum fixation biteplate system, while 11 patients were immobilized with an open‐face mask system. A setup margin of 1 mm was used in treatment planning. Real‐time surface motion data in 37 treatment fractions using the vacuum fixation system and 44 fractions using the open‐face mask were recorded by an SGRT system. Variances of intrafractional motion along three translational directions and three rotational directions were compared between the two immobilization techniques with Levene's tests. Intrafractional motion variation over time during treatments was also evaluated. RESULTS: Using the vacuum fixation system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were 0.01 ± 0.18 mm, ‐0.06 ± 0.30 mm, and  0.02 ± 0.26 mm in the anterior–posterior (AP), superior–inferior (SI), and left–right (LR) directions, and ‐0.02 ± 0.19°, ‐0.01 ± 0.13°, and 0.01 ± 0.13° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively; using the open‐face mask system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were ‐0.06 ± 0.20 mm, ‐0.02 ± 0.35 mm, and 0.01 ± 0.40 mm in the AP, SI, and LR directions, and were 0.05 ± 0.23°, 0.02 ± 0.21°, and 0.00 ± 0.16° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively. There was a significant increase in intrafractional motion variance over time during treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients with the vacuum fixation system had significantly smaller intrafractional motion variation compared to those with the open‐face mask system. Using intrafractional motion techniques such as surface imaging system is recommended to minimize dose deviation due to intrafractional motion. The increase in intrafractional motion over time indicates clinical benefits with shorter treatment time. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9195026/ /pubmed/35441441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13613 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Han, Chunhui
Amini, Arya
Wong, Jeffrey Y.C.
Liang, Jieming
Qing, Kun
Watkins, W. Tyler
Zhang, Sean
Williams, Terence M.
Liu, An
Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title_full Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title_fullStr Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title_short Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
title_sort comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface‐guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195026/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13613
work_keys_str_mv AT hanchunhui comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT aminiarya comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT wongjeffreyyc comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT liangjieming comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT qingkun comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT watkinswtyler comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT zhangsean comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT williamsterencem comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery
AT liuan comparisonofintrafractionalmotionwithtwoframelessimmobilizationsystemsinsurfaceguidedintracranialstereotacticradiosurgery