Dosimetric impact of uncorrected systematic yaw rotation in VMAT for peripheral lung SABR.
Lung SABR
Rotational error
Setup error
VMAT
Journal
Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
ISSN: 1507-1367
Titre abrégé: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 100885761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
03
06
2019
revised:
02
07
2019
accepted:
30
07
2019
entrez:
14
9
2019
pubmed:
14
9
2019
medline:
14
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of uncorrected yaw rotational error on both target coverage and OAR dose metrics in this patient population. Rotational set up errors can be difficult to correct in lung VMAT SABR treatments, and may lead to a change in planned dose distributions. We retrospectively applied systematic yaw rotational errors in 1° degree increments up to -5° and +5° degrees in 16 VMAT SABR plans. The impact on PTV and OARs (oesophagus, spinal canal, heart, airway, chest wall, brachial plexus, lung) was evaluated using a variety of dose metrics. Changes were assessed in relation to percentage deviation from approved planned dose at 0 degrees. Target coverage was largely unaffected with the largest mean and maximum percentage difference being 1.4% and 6% respectively to PTV D98% at +5 degrees yaw.Impact on OARs was varied. Minimal impact was observed in oesophagus, spinal canal, chest wall or lung dose metrics. Larger variations were observed in the heart, airway and brachial plexus. The largest mean and maximum percentage differences being 20.77% and 311% respectively at -5 degrees yaw to airway D0.1cc, however, the clinical impact was negligible as these variations were observed in metrics with minimal initial doses. No clinically unacceptable changes to dose metrics were observed in this patient cohort but large percentage deviations from approved dose metrics in OARs were noted. OARs with associated PRV structures appear more robust to uncorrected rotational error.
Sections du résumé
AIM
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of uncorrected yaw rotational error on both target coverage and OAR dose metrics in this patient population.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rotational set up errors can be difficult to correct in lung VMAT SABR treatments, and may lead to a change in planned dose distributions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively applied systematic yaw rotational errors in 1° degree increments up to -5° and +5° degrees in 16 VMAT SABR plans. The impact on PTV and OARs (oesophagus, spinal canal, heart, airway, chest wall, brachial plexus, lung) was evaluated using a variety of dose metrics. Changes were assessed in relation to percentage deviation from approved planned dose at 0 degrees.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Target coverage was largely unaffected with the largest mean and maximum percentage difference being 1.4% and 6% respectively to PTV D98% at +5 degrees yaw.Impact on OARs was varied. Minimal impact was observed in oesophagus, spinal canal, chest wall or lung dose metrics. Larger variations were observed in the heart, airway and brachial plexus. The largest mean and maximum percentage differences being 20.77% and 311% respectively at -5 degrees yaw to airway D0.1cc, however, the clinical impact was negligible as these variations were observed in metrics with minimal initial doses.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
No clinically unacceptable changes to dose metrics were observed in this patient cohort but large percentage deviations from approved dose metrics in OARs were noted. OARs with associated PRV structures appear more robust to uncorrected rotational error.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31516398
doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2019.07.010
pii: S1507-1367(19)30060-4
pmc: PMC6731354
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
520-527Références
Radiat Oncol. 2009 Jan 12;4:1
pubmed: 19138400
JAMA. 2010 Mar 17;303(11):1070-6
pubmed: 20233825
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Dec;97(3):437-42
pubmed: 21074878
Acta Oncol. 2012 May;51(5):610-7
pubmed: 22263924
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1587-95
pubmed: 22300575
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jan 1;85(1):230-6
pubmed: 22554583
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Nov 1;84(3):e435-40
pubmed: 22727886
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jan 05;8:7
pubmed: 23289496
Br J Radiol. 2013 Mar;86(1023):20120498
pubmed: 23392190
Med Dosim. 2014 Spring;39(1):117-21
pubmed: 24485056
Med Dosim. 2014 Winter;39(4):292-9
pubmed: 24910247
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):630-7
pubmed: 25981812
Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1055):20140862
pubmed: 26369834
J Med Radiat Sci. 2016 Mar;63(1):23-30
pubmed: 27087972
Phys Med. 2016 Jul;32(7):859-65
pubmed: 27289354
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Feb;12(2):293-301
pubmed: 27743888
Phys Med. 2017 Dec;44:139-149
pubmed: 28242140
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Jul;124(1):1-10
pubmed: 28666551
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Nov;85:106-113
pubmed: 28898766
Phys Med. 2017 Oct;42:197-202
pubmed: 29173916
Phys Med. 2018 Mar;47:129-138
pubmed: 29331227
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 May;19(3):19-26
pubmed: 29524301
Phys Med. 2018 Apr;48:21-26
pubmed: 29728225
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Oct 1;102(2):434-442
pubmed: 29908945
Med Dosim. 2019 Summer;44(2):183-189
pubmed: 30135024
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jan;9(1):38-48
pubmed: 30138747
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Nov 12;63(22):22TR02
pubmed: 30418942
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2017 Dec;48(4):343-345
pubmed: 31047468
Biometrics. 1982 Dec;38(4):963-74
pubmed: 7168798