The British journal of radiology · 2023
Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: quantifying intra-fraction motion and calculating margins using the new BIR geometric uncertainties in daily online IGRT recommendations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McNeice Joseph M, Sanilkumar Nandu, Alexander Sophie E, Talbot James, Tree Alison C, McNair Helen A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To measure the magnitude of intra-fraction prostate motion (IFPM) during stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered without intra-fraction tracking.To assess if current margins adequately cover IFPM.To derive margins using new guidelines.
METHODS: IFPM was determined in 20 patients receiving 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using 97 pairs of pre- and post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scans. Correlation of time between CBCT acquisitions and motion was determined. The magnitude of IFPM was compared to current margins (6 mm isotropic, 3 mm posterior). Margins were calculated using IFPM alone and updated guidelines.
RESULTS: The averaged 3D root mean square IFPM was 2.5 mm (4.2 mm). Independent prostate motion was predominantly posterior (70%) and inferior (63%). There was weak correlation between posterior (ρ = 0.38) and inferior (ρ = 0.36) IFPM and time. IFPM greater than current margins occurred in 8 of 97 fractions, six in the posterior direction. Margins were ≤3.5 mm using IFPM alone and ≤3.3 mm Left 3.5 mm Right, 7.0 mm inferior, 3.7 mm superior, 4.4 mm anterior and 3.3 mm posterior using new guidelines, compensating for motion in 92% of fractions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our current SBRT margins account for 92% of IFPM, predominantly posterior and inferior. Although updated guidelines suggest an increase in margins inferiorly, any increase must be balanced against the possibility of increased toxicity, particularly if biochemical control and side-effects are favourable with current practice.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The difference between current clinical margins and those determined using updated guidance is demonstrated. The implications must be considered against clinical outcomes.
METHODS: IFPM was determined in 20 patients receiving 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using 97 pairs of pre- and post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scans. Correlation of time between CBCT acquisitions and motion was determined. The magnitude of IFPM was compared to current margins (6 mm isotropic, 3 mm posterior). Margins were calculated using IFPM alone and updated guidelines.
RESULTS: The averaged 3D root mean square IFPM was 2.5 mm (4.2 mm). Independent prostate motion was predominantly posterior (70%) and inferior (63%). There was weak correlation between posterior (ρ = 0.38) and inferior (ρ = 0.36) IFPM and time. IFPM greater than current margins occurred in 8 of 97 fractions, six in the posterior direction. Margins were ≤3.5 mm using IFPM alone and ≤3.3 mm Left 3.5 mm Right, 7.0 mm inferior, 3.7 mm superior, 4.4 mm anterior and 3.3 mm posterior using new guidelines, compensating for motion in 92% of fractions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our current SBRT margins account for 92% of IFPM, predominantly posterior and inferior. Although updated guidelines suggest an increase in margins inferiorly, any increase must be balanced against the possibility of increased toxicity, particularly if biochemical control and side-effects are favourable with current practice.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The difference between current clinical margins and those determined using updated guidance is demonstrated. The implications must be considered against clinical outcomes.