ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the different techniques used for liver metastases Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) planning. We especially focused on immobilization devices, motion management and imaging used for contouring. BACKGROUND: Although some guidelines exist, there is no consensus regarding the minimal requirements for liver SBRT treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the main liver metastases SBRT publications and guidelines; and compared the techniques used for immobilization, motion management, margins and imaging. RESULTS: There is a wide variety of techniques used for immobilization, motion management and planning imaging. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a subjective critical analysis of minimal requirements and ideal technique for liver SBRT planning.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the tumor repositioning during gated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT) treatment using implanted fiducial markers and intrafraction kilovoltage (kV) images acquired during dose delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2012, 47 liver cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were treated using the gated VMAT technique with a Varian Truebeam STx linear accelerator. The fiducial markers were implanted inside or close to the tumor target before treatment simulation. They were defined at the maximum inhalation and exhalation phases on a 4-dimensionnal computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. During the treatment, kV images were acquired just before the beam-on at each breathing cycle at maximum exhalation and inhalation phases to verify the fiducial markers positions. For the five first fractions of treatment in the first ten consecutive patients, a total of 2705 intrafraction kV images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the differences between expected and actual positions of the fiducial markers along the cranio-caudal (CC) direction during the exhalation phase. RESULTS: The mean absolute intrafractional fiducial marker deviation along the CC direction was 1.0 mm at the maximum exhalation phase. In 99%, 95% and 90% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction kV images allowed us to ensure the consistency of tumor repositioning during treatment. In 99% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm corresponding to our 5 mm treatment margin. This margin seems to be well-adapted to the gated VMAT SBRT treatment in liver disease.
ABSTRACT
The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n= 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17 ± 0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27± 0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85 ± 0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77 ± 0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35 ± 5.61 cc vs. 10.52 ± 6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046 ± 374 MU vs. 4651 ± 736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24 ± 0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8 ± 0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71 ± 0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27 ± 4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC < RAT< RAC < DCA. For a single lesion close to OAR, RAT achieved high degrees of homogeneity (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.53 ± 0.2 for DCA) and conformity (0.72± 0.06vs. 0.56 ± 0.13 for DCA) while sparing organs at risk (Dmax = 12.36 ± 1.05Gyvs. 14.12 ± 0.59 Gy for DCA, and Dmean = 3.96 ± 3.57Gyvs. 4.72 ± 3.28Gy for DCA). On the other hand, MU numbers were lower with DCA (2254 ± 190 MUvs. 3438 ± 457 MU for RANC) even if overall time was inferior with RAC. For a single lesion, DCA provide better plan considering low doses to healthy brain even if quality indexes are better for the others techniques. For multiple lesions, RANC seems to be the best compromise, due to the ability to deliver a good conformity and homogeneity plan while sparing healthy brain tissue. For a single lesion close to organs at risk, RAT is the most appropriate technique.
