Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Intrafraction variation of mean tumor position during image-guided hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Prolonged delivery times during daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) introduce concerns regarding intrafraction variation (IFV) of the mean target position (MTP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of the IFV-MTP and to assess target margins required to compensate for IFV and postonline CBCT correction residuals. Patient, treatment, and tumor characteristics were analyzed with respect to their impact on IFV-MTP.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 126 patients with 140 tumors underwent 659 fractions of lung SBRT. Dose prescribed was 48 or 60 Gy in 12 Gy fractions. Translational target position correction of the MTP was performed via onboard CBCT. IFV-MTP was measured as the difference in MTP between the postcorrection CBCT and the posttreatment CBCT excluding residual error.

RESULTS: IFV-MTP was 0.2 ± 1.8 mm, 0.1 ± 1.9 mm, and 0.01 ± 1.5 mm in the craniocaudal, anteroposterior, and mediolateral dimensions and the IFV-MTP vector was 2.3 ± 2.1 mm. Treatment time and excursion were found to be significant predictors of IFV-MTP. An IFV-MTP vector greater than 2 and 5 mm was seen in 40.8% and 7.2% of fractions, respectively. IFV-MTP greater than 2 mm was seen in heavier patients with larger excursions and longer treatment times. Significant differences in IFV-MTP were seen between immobilization devices. The stereotactic frame immobilization device was found to be significantly less likely to have an IFV-MTP vector greater than 2 mm compared with the alpha cradle, BodyFIX, and hybrid immobilization devices.

CONCLUSIONS: Treatment time and respiratory excursion are significantly associated with IFV-MTP. Significant differences in IFV-MTP were found between immobilization devices. Target margins for IFV-MTP plus post-correction residuals are dependent on immobilization device with 5-mm uniform margins being acceptable for the frame immobilization device.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app