Li Jun, Kong Xianghui, Cheng Cheng, Wang Gong, Zhuang Hongqing, Yang Ruijie
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Front Oncol. 2023 Apr 3;13:959447. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.959447. eCollection 2023.
The aim of this study is to analyze which tracking modality is more suitable for stereotactic body radiosurgery of lumbosacral spinal tumors by comparing prone and supine patient treatment setup.
Eighteen patients with lumbosacral spinal tumors were selected. CT simulation was performed in the supine position (fixed with a vacuum cushion) and prone position (fixed with a thermoplastic mask and prone plate), respectively. The plans in the supine and prone positions were designed using the xsight spine tracking (XST) and xsight spine prone tracking (XSPT) modalities, respectively. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, namely, V, D, D, conformity index (CI), and heterogeneity index (HI) in planning target volume (PTV), as well as D, D, D, and D in the cauda equina and bowel were recorded. The supine plans were simulation plans and were not used for treatment, which were only used to record the alignment errors. The spinal tracking correction errors (alignment error) and correlation errors of the synchrony respiratory model in the prone position were recorded during the treatment. After treatment, the simulation plan of the supine position was implemented and the spinal tracking correction errors were recorded. The parameters of correction error and DVH parameters for the two positions were analyzed using the paired -test to compare the difference in positioning accuracy and dose distribution. In addition, the correlation errors of the synchrony respiratory model in the prone position were analyzed to evaluate the prediction accuracy of the synchrony model.
For patient setup, the correction error of the supine position in interior/posterior was (0.18 ± 0.16) mm and the prone position was (0.31 ± 0.26) mm (< 0.05). The correction error of the supine position in inferior/superior was (0.27 ± 0.24) mm, and the prone position was (0.5 ± 0.4) mm ( 0.05). The average correlation errors of the synchrony model for left/right, inferior/superior, and anterior/posterior in the prone position were (0.21 ± 0.11) mm, (0.41 ± 0.38) mm, and (0.68 ± 0.42) mm, respectively. For the dose distribution, compared with prone plans, the average CI in supine plans was increased by 4.5% (< 0.05). There was no significant difference in HI, PTV V D, and D between the prone and supine plans. Compared with supine plans, average D and D for the cauda equina was significantly decreased by 4.7 and 15.3% in the prone plan ( 0.05). For the bowel, average D, D, D, and D were reduced by 8.0, 7.7, 5.2, and 26.6% in prone plans (< 0.05) compared with supine plans.
Compared with the supine setup, the prone setup combined with XSPT modality for the lumbosacral spinal stereotactic body radiosurgery can spare the bowel and cauda equina of the middle and low dose irradiation, and decrease the number of beams and monitor units.
本研究旨在通过比较患者俯卧位和仰卧位的治疗设置,分析哪种跟踪方式更适合腰骶部脊柱肿瘤的立体定向体部放射治疗。
选取18例腰骶部脊柱肿瘤患者。分别在仰卧位(用真空垫固定)和俯卧位(用热塑性面罩和俯卧板固定)进行CT模拟。仰卧位和俯卧位的计划分别采用xsight脊柱跟踪(XST)和xsight脊柱俯卧跟踪(XSPT)模式设计。记录计划靶区(PTV)的剂量体积直方图(DVH)参数,即V、D、D、适形指数(CI)和不均匀性指数(HI),以及马尾神经和肠管的D、D、D和D。仰卧位计划为模拟计划,不用于治疗,仅用于记录对准误差。治疗期间记录俯卧位时脊柱跟踪校正误差(对准误差)和同步呼吸模型的相关误差。治疗后,实施仰卧位模拟计划并记录脊柱跟踪校正误差。采用配对t检验分析两个位置的校正误差参数和DVH参数,比较定位精度和剂量分布的差异。此外,分析俯卧位时同步呼吸模型的相关误差,评估同步模型的预测准确性。
对于患者体位设置,仰卧位在前后方向的校正误差为(0.18±0.16)mm,俯卧位为(0.31±0.26)mm(P<0.05)。仰卧位在上下方向的校正误差为(0.27±0.24)mm,俯卧位为(0.5±0.4)mm(P>0.05)。俯卧位时同步模型在左右、上下和前后方向的平均相关误差分别为(0.21±0.11)mm、(0.41±0.38)mm和(0.68±0.42)mm。对于剂量分布,与俯卧位计划相比,仰卧位计划的平均CI增加了4.5%(P<0.05)。俯卧位和仰卧位计划在HI、PTV V D和D方面无显著差异。与仰卧位计划相比,俯卧位计划中马尾神经的平均D和D分别显著降低了4.7%和15.3%(P<0.05)。对于肠管,俯卧位计划中的平均D、D、D和D与仰卧位计划相比分别降低了8.0%、7.7%、5.2%和26.6%(P<0.05)。
与仰卧位设置相比,俯卧位设置结合XSPT模式用于腰骶部脊柱立体定向体部放射治疗可使肠管和马尾神经免受中低剂量照射,并减少射野数和监测单位数。