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
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
234-241Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.