Is multileaf collimator tracking or gating a better intrafraction motion adaptation strategy? An analysis of the TROG 15.01 stereotactic prostate ablative radiotherapy with KIM (SPARK) trial.

Gating Kilovoltage Intrafraction Monitoring (KIM) Multileaf collimator tracking Prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) Real-time image-guided radiotherapy

Journal

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
received: 20 03 2020
revised: 17 07 2020
accepted: 16 08 2020
pubmed: 24 8 2020
medline: 15 4 2021
entrez: 24 8 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) has recently emerged as a favourable treatment option for prostate cancer patients. With higher doses delivered over fewer fractions, motion adaptation is a requirement for accurate delivery of SABR. This study compared the efficacy of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking vs. gating as a real-time motion adaptation strategy for prostate SABR patients enrolled in a clinical trial. Forty-four prostate cancer patients treated over five fractions in the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial were analysed in this study. Forty-nine fractions were treated using MLC tracking and 166 fractions were treated using beam gating and couch shifts. A time-resolved motion-encoded dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered using each motion adaptation strategy and compared to an estimation of what would have been delivered with no motion adaptation strategy implemented. MLC tracking and gating both delivered doses closer to the plan compared to when no motion adaptation strategy was used. Differences between MLC tracking and gating were small with differences in the mean discrepancy from the plan of -0.3% (CTV D Both MLC tracking and gating were effective strategies at improving the accuracy of the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk. While dosimetric performance was comparable, gating resulted in interruptions to treatment. NCT02397317.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32828839
pii: S0167-8140(20)30728-3
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.08.010
pii:
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02397317']

Types de publication

Clinical Trial Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

234-241

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Emily A Hewson (EA)

ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney Medical School, Australia. Electronic address: emily.hewson@sydney.edu.au.

Doan T Nguyen (DT)

ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney Medical School, Australia; School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Technology Sydney.

Ricky O'Brien (R)

ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney Medical School, Australia.

Per R Poulsen (PR)

Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

Jeremy T Booth (JT)

Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia; School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia.

Peter Greer (P)

Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, Australia.

Thomas Eade (T)

Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia.

Andrew Kneebone (A)

Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia.

George Hruby (G)

Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia.

Trevor Moodie (T)

Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Amy J Hayden (AJ)

Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Sandra L Turner (SL)

Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Nicholas Hardcastle (N)

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Shankar Siva (S)

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Keen Hun Tai (KH)

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Jarad Martin (J)

Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, Australia.

Paul J Keall (PJ)

ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney Medical School, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH