Cancers · 2025
Optimizing Motion Management and Baseline Shifts in Magnetic Resonance-Guided Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.
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.
Ding Yao, Salzillo Travis C, Yeboa Debra N, Tom Martin C, Wang Zhiheng, Diagaradjane Parmeswaran, Subashi Ergys, Yang Jinzhong, Swanson Todd, Beckham Thomas, Wang Chenyang, Ghia Amol J, Briere Tina, Wang Jihong, Lathuilière Fabienne, Cloake Sneha, Han Eun Young
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has proven effective in controlling spinal lesions with minimal toxicity, primarily due to its ability to limit spinal cord dose. Recent advances in MR-linac (MRL) technology offer superior spinal cord visualization and real-time gating, which can facilitate dose escalation in spinal tumor treatment while maintaining safety.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to optimize motion management for spine SBRT on an MRL by analyzing patient-specific motion dynamics and evaluating the most effective registration structures. We hypothesized that baseline shifts (BLS) would improve delivery efficiency while maintaining spinal cord dose constraints. The goal was to establish displacement thresholds and assess the role of baseline shift correction adaptative planning in improving treatment delivery efficiency.
METHODS: Twelve patients underwent two MRI sessions on the MRL. The optimal registration structure was identified, and intrafraction motion was assessed to calculate delivery efficiency. Baseline shift (BLS) simulations were applied for five cases that showed significant motion and suboptimal delivery efficiency, and the dosimetric impact of the BLS was evaluated. The simulated BLS-based plan adaptation was implemented via a segment aperture morphing adapt-to-position workflow.
RESULTS: The most stable registration structure was the spinal canal plus three adjacent vertebrae. Cine imaging revealed average intrafraction motion (95th to 5th percentiles) of 0.8 ± 0.5 mm in the right-left (RL) direction, 0.9 ± 0.6 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, and 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in the SI direction. Simulated BLS improved delivery efficiency to >80% in all but one case, with a ±1 mm displacement threshold tolerance. While target coverage remained consistent after BLS simulation, the spinal cord dose increased by 7-60%, exceeding the 14 Gy constraint in three of the five simulated cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Cine imaging and BLS can enhance delivery efficiency in spine SBRT but may increase spinal cord dose. These findings underscore the need for careful patient selection, advanced motion management, and patient-specific BLS protocols.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to optimize motion management for spine SBRT on an MRL by analyzing patient-specific motion dynamics and evaluating the most effective registration structures. We hypothesized that baseline shifts (BLS) would improve delivery efficiency while maintaining spinal cord dose constraints. The goal was to establish displacement thresholds and assess the role of baseline shift correction adaptative planning in improving treatment delivery efficiency.
METHODS: Twelve patients underwent two MRI sessions on the MRL. The optimal registration structure was identified, and intrafraction motion was assessed to calculate delivery efficiency. Baseline shift (BLS) simulations were applied for five cases that showed significant motion and suboptimal delivery efficiency, and the dosimetric impact of the BLS was evaluated. The simulated BLS-based plan adaptation was implemented via a segment aperture morphing adapt-to-position workflow.
RESULTS: The most stable registration structure was the spinal canal plus three adjacent vertebrae. Cine imaging revealed average intrafraction motion (95th to 5th percentiles) of 0.8 ± 0.5 mm in the right-left (RL) direction, 0.9 ± 0.6 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, and 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in the SI direction. Simulated BLS improved delivery efficiency to >80% in all but one case, with a ±1 mm displacement threshold tolerance. While target coverage remained consistent after BLS simulation, the spinal cord dose increased by 7-60%, exceeding the 14 Gy constraint in three of the five simulated cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Cine imaging and BLS can enhance delivery efficiency in spine SBRT but may increase spinal cord dose. These findings underscore the need for careful patient selection, advanced motion management, and patient-specific BLS protocols.