Vol 27, No 2 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-03-07

open access

Page views 4640
Article views/downloads 356
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Impact of immobilisation and image guidance protocol on planning target volume margins for supine craniospinal irradiation

Rahul Krishnatry12, Shivkumar Gudi12, Aparna Siwach13, Anita Patil12, Rajesh K R12, Himanshu Kumar Shekhar12, Vivek Sutar12, Abhishek Chatterjee12, Jayant Goda Sastri12, Rakesh Jalali12, Tejpal Gupta12
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022;27(2):250-259.

Abstract

Background: The setup errors during supine-CSI (sCSI) using single or dual immobilisation (SM, DM) subsets from two institutions were reviewed to determine if DM consistently decreased the required planning target volumes (PTV) margins and to identify the optimal image guidance environments.

Materials and methods: Ours and a sister institutional cohort, each with a subset of SM or DM sCSI and daily 3-dimensional online image verification sets, were reviewed for the cranial and spinal regions translational shifts. Using descriptive statistics, scatter plots and independent sample Mann-Whitney test we compared shifts in each direction for two subsets in each cohort deriving PTV margins (Van Herk: VH, Strooms: St recipes) for the cranial and spinal regions. Three image guidance (IG) protocols were simulated for two regions on the combined cohort with SM and DM subsets to identify the most optimal option with the smallest PTV margin. The IG protocols: 3F, 5F and 5FB where the systematic error correction was done using the average error from the first three, five and in the cranium alone (applied to both the cranium and spine, otherwise) for the first five set-ups, respectively.

Results: 6968 image sets for 179 patients showed DM could consistently reduce the PTV margin (VH/St) for the cranium from 6/5 to 4/3.5 (31.8/30.8%) and 6/4 to 4/3.5 mm (30.5/16.8%) for primary and validation cohort, respectively. Similarly, for the spine it was 10/8.5 to 6/5.5 (38.6/38.4%) and 9/7.7 to 7/6 (21.6/21.4%), respectively. The “5F-IG” resulted in the smallest margins for both the cranial (3 mm) and spinal region (5 mm) for DM with estimated 95% CTV coverage probability.

Conclusion: DM with 5F-IG would significantly reduce the required PTV margins for sCSI.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Salloum R, Chen Y, Yasui Y, et al. Late Morbidity and Mortality Among Medulloblastoma Survivors Diagnosed Across Three Decades: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37(9): 731–740.
  2. Ning MS, Perkins SM, Dewees T, et al. Evidence of high mortality in long term survivors of childhood medulloblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2015; 122(2): 321–327.
  3. Christopherson KM, Rotondo RL, Bradley JA, et al. Late toxicity following craniospinal radiation for early-stage medulloblastoma. Acta Oncol. 2014; 53(4): 471–480.
  4. Miralbell R, Fitzgerald TJ, Laurie F, et al. Radiotherapy in pediatric medulloblastoma: quality assessment of Pediatric Oncology Group Trial 9031. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64(5): 1325–1330.
  5. Donahue B, Marymont MAH, Kessel S, et al. Radiation therapy quality in CCG/POG intergroup 9961: implications for craniospinal irradiation and the posterior fossa boost in future medulloblastoma trials. Front Oncol. 2012; 2: 185.
  6. Al-Wassia R, Bahig H, Poon E, et al. Daily setup uncertainty analysis for craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013; 3(4): 349–355.
  7. Gupta T, Upasani M, Master Z, et al. Assessment of three-dimensional set-up errors using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) during image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) on helical tomotherapy (HT). Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2015; 14(1): 29–36.
  8. Thondykandy BA, Swamidas JV, Agarwal J, et al. Setup error analysis in helical tomotherapy based image-guided radiation therapy treatments. J Med Phys. 2015; 40(4): 233–239.
  9. Saha A, Mallick I, Das P, et al. Evaluating the Need for Daily Image Guidance in Head and Neck Cancers Treated with Helical Tomotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis of a Large Number of Daily Imaging-based Corrections. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016; 28(3): 178–184.
  10. McNair HA, Hansen VN, Parker CC, et al. A comparison of the use of bony anatomy and internal markers for offline verification and an evaluation of the potential benefit of online and offline verification protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71(1): 41–50.
  11. van Nunen A, van der Toorn PPG, Budiharto TCG, et al. Optimal image guided radiation therapy strategy for organs at risk sparing in radiotherapy of the prostate including pelvic lymph nodes. Radiother Oncol. 2018; 127(1): 68–73.
  12. Boer Hde, Heijmen B. A protocol for the reduction of systematic patient setup errors with minimal portal imaging workload. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 50(5): 1350–1365.
  13. Munshi A, Jalali R. A simple technique of supine craniospinal irradiation. Med Dosim. 2008; 33(1): 1–5.
  14. VanHerk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004; 14(1): 52–64.
  15. Chen AM, Farwell DG, Luu Q, et al. Evaluation of the planning target volume in the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: what is the appropriate expansion margin in the setting of daily image guidance? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81(4): 943–949.
  16. Qi XS, Hu AY, Lee SP, et al. Assessment of interfraction patient setup for head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy using multiple computed tomography-based image guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86(3): 432–439.
  17. Bell LJ, Cox J, Eade T, et al. Determining optimal planning target volume and image guidance policy for post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 151.
  18. Navran A, Heemsbergen W, Janssen T, et al. The impact of margin reduction on outcome and toxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Radiother Oncol. 2019; 130: 25–31.
  19. Chaurasia AR, Sun KJ, Premo C, et al. Evaluating the potential benefit of reduced planning target volume margins for low and intermediate risk patients with prostate cancer using real-time electromagnetic tracking. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018; 3(4): 630–638.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy