Elsevier

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Volume 57, Issue 2, 1 November 2000, Pages 225-236
Radiotherapy and Oncology

Stereotactic radiotherapy of extracranial targets: CT-simulation and accuracy of treatment in the stereotactic body frame

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00226-7Get rights and content

Abstract

Background and purpose: Evaluation of set-up accuracy and analysis of target reproducibility in the stereotactic body frame (SBF), designed by Blomgren and Lax from Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm. Different types of targets were analyzed for the risk of target deviation. The correlation of target deviation to bony structures was analyzed to evaluate the value of bones as reference structures for isocenter verification.

Materials and methods: Thirty patients with 32 targets were treated in the SBF for primary or metastatic peripheral lung cancer, liver metastases, abdominal and pelvic tumor recurrences or bone metastases. Set-up accuracy and target mobility were evaluated by CT-simulation and port films. The contours of the target at isocenter level, bony structures and body outline were compared by matching the CT-slices for treatment planning and simulation using the stereotactic coordinates of the SBF as external reference system. The matching procedure was performed by using a 3D treatment planning program.

Results: Set-up accuracy represented by bony structures revealed standard deviations (SD) of 3.5 mm in longitudinal, 2.2 mm in anterior–posterior and 3.9 mm in lateral directions. Target reproducibility showed a SD of 4.4 mm in longitudinal, 3.4 mm ap and 3.3 mm in lateral direction prior to correction. Correlation of target deviation to bones ranged from 33% (soft tissue targets) to 100% (bones).

Conclusion: A security margin of 5 mm for PTV definition is sufficient, if CT simulation is performed prior to each treatment to correct larger target deviations or set-up errors. Isocenter verification relative to bony structures is only safe for bony targets but not for soft tissue targets.

Introduction

Stereotactic irradiation of extracranial targets is an emerging treatment concept in clinical radiotherapy. Hypofractionated treatment with two to four fractions (10–20 Gy/fraction, normalized to the 65%-isodose), 30–75 Gy/normalized to the 80%-isodose in 5–15 fractions or single dose irradiation (14–24 Gy, normalized to the 80%-isodose) [6], [7], [10], [12], [14], [15], [25] are reported. The dose is given to macroscopic tumor not amenable to surgery or unlikely to be controlled by conventional radiotherapy. The planning target volume (PTV) encloses the tumor with a tight security margin, which accounts for target motion and positioning uncertainty. Similar to intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy the dose is prescribed to a target enclosing isodose and a substantial dose inhomogeneity with higher central and median doses in the target center is desired. Typical targets for extracranial stereotactic treatment are small tumors or recurrences of tumors of the lung (T1/2), lung metastases, liver metastases, abdominal tumors, pelvic recurrences of rectal or cervical cancer and bone metastases of relatively radioresistant primaries. Usually these targets are close to radiosensitive organs at risk as mediastinal structures, the stomach and duodenum, small or large bowel, rectum, urinary bladder, nerves or spinal cord.

Unlike the situation in intracranial stereotactic irradiation or radiosurgery, hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of extracranial targets has to consider motions of the target and organs at risk. Patient movement in the immobilization device due to the lack of sharp fixation and repositioning uncertainty in a fractionated treatment have to be addressed. Evaluation of treatment precision and of risk factors for target deviations is important to define narrow security margins for highly conformal dose distribution inherent to the concept of ‘radiosurgery’ with the use of high single doses.

In our clinic stereotactic irradiation of extracranial targets was started in November 1997 adopting the method from Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. We use the stereotactic body frame (SBF) as well as the concept of fractionation and dose prescription created and described by Lax and Blomgren [6], [7], [14], [15]. According to the Swedish concept the SBF is not only meant to be an immobilization device but is also a philosophy for treatment application: the stereotactic system of coordinates is used as definite reference system for the target position instead of anatomical landmarks such as bony structures or skin markers often used in conventional radiotherapy.

For quality assurance and evaluation of potential pitfalls at the beginning of a newly introduced treatment modality at our institution we modified the original procedure described by Lax and Blomgren. The CT-scan prior to stereotactic irradiation was not only used for verification of the isocenter and target position. Additionally the position of bony structures and of the body outline were analyzed to evaluate the reproducibility of the patient repositioning in the SBF using the stereotactic system of the SBF as external reference system. The reproducibility of bony structures and its relation to target reproducibility was analyzed to evaluate the value of bones for isocenter verification at the linac by port films.

In this study the precision of alignment, the repositioning uncertainty and target mobility during fractionated treatment as well as the positional correlation of soft tissue GTV's with bony landmarks used in portal imaging were measured using CT-simulation and port films. These data were analyzed in relation to the PTV margin chosen. The results are reported from the first 30 consecutive patients with 32 targets, who underwent hypofractionated stereotactic irradiation of extracranial tumors at our department from November 1997 to September 1998.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The SBF has been described in detail, as well as the methodology for extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, by Lax et al. [14], [15]. The clinical results from the use of the SBF has been published by Blomgren et al. [6], [7]. The SBF is a U-shaped rigid plastic frame with outer dimensions of 111 cm in length, 51.2 cm in width and 36.3 cm anterior–posterior (Fig. 1). It is commercially available by ELEKTA Instruments Inc. Within the frame a vacuum pillow is attached, which is molded

Alignment

Alignment of the stereotactic coordinate system of the SBF was adequate with median and mean deviations of 0 mm with a standard deviation of 1.4 mm. Maximum longitudinal deviation in cranial direction of 2.9 and of 3.9 mm in caudal direction indicated that in single cases alignment was inadequate. Possible reasons for misalignment are shift of the SBF on the CT-couch due to rapid couch movements at the slice selection procedure or not optimal slice-selection from the CT-scout. Therefore the

Discussion

In this study a comprehensive approach was tried to evaluate the target reproducibility for stereotactic conformal radiotherapy of extracranial lesions using a rigid body frame for immobilization. This means relying on a stereotactic coordinate system of the frame rather than marks on the patient surface for treatment isocenter definition. The system studied was developed by Blomgren and Lax [6], [7], [14], [15] at Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. An external reference system

References (27)

Cited by (224)

  • Dose to organ at risk and dose prescription in liver SBRT

    2017, Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy
  • Imaged-guided liver stereotactic body radiotherapy using VMAT and real-time adaptive tumor gating. Concerns about technique and preliminary clinical results

    2017, Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy
    Citation Excerpt :

    Furthermore, they confirmed that the position relative to the bony anatomy did not remain constant with changes in the motion amplitude of >3 mm seen in 17% of the treatment fractions and it could be >5 mm in patients treated without abdominal compression.31 Those findings denoted, as previously reported by Wulf et al., the need of security margins to compensate these intrafractional uncertainties of at least 6 mm in the SI direction and 4 mm in the Left-Right (LR) direction.35 Another approach is the use of respiratory gating, which is considered accurate only when internal tumor motion occurring during beam-on, does not exceed treatment margins.37

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text