Implementation of triggered kilovoltage imaging for stereotactic radiotherapy of the spine for patients with spinal fixation hardware. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cetnar, Ashley J.; Degnan, Michael; Pichler, Joseph; Jain, Sagarika; Morelli, Samantha; Thomas, Evan; Elder, J. Bradley; Scharschmidt, Thomas J.; Palmer, Joshua D.; Blakaj, Dukagjin M.
• Is Part Of: Physics and imaging in radiation oncology. Volume 25(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Intrafraction motion review -- Triggered imaging -- Advanced imaging -- Spine -- Stereotactic; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiation dosimetry -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Oncology -- Periodicals; 615.842
• DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100422
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-6316

Abstract

Highlights: Triggered imaging is an effective method of assessing intrafraction motion for stereotactic spine patients with hardware. The technology provides the ability to detect intrafraction motion exceeding 1 mm so treatment can be paused and reassessed. In our cohort, the average intrafraction motion was 0.35 mm with 1 of 33 fractions exceeding the 1 mm motion tolerance. Abstract: Background and purpose: Mitigation of intrafraction motion (IM) is valuable in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) radiotherapy where submillimeter accuracy is desired. The purpose of this study was to investigate the application of triggered kilovoltage (kV) imaging for spine SRT patients with hardware by correlating kV imaging with patient motion and summarizing implications of tolerance for IM based on calculated dose. Materials and methods: Ten plans (33 fractions) were studied, correlating kV imaging during treatment with pre- and post-treatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Images were taken at 20-degree gantry angle intervals during the arc-based treatment. The contour of the hardware with a 1 mm expansion was displayed at the treatment console to manually pause treatment delivery if the hardware was visually detected outside the contour. The treatment CBCTs were compared using retrospective image registration to assess the validity of contour-based method for pausing treatment. Finally, plans were generated to estimate dose volume objective differences in case of 1 mm deviation. Results: When kV imaging during treatment was used with the 1 mm contour, 100 % of the post-treatment CBCTs reported consistent results. One patient in the cohort exhibited motion greater than 1 mm during treatment which allowed intervention and re-setup during treatment. The average translational motion was 0.35 mm. Treatment plan comparison at 1 mm deviation showed little differences in calculated dose for the target and cord. Conclusions: Utilizing kV imaging during treatment is an effective method of assessing IM for SRT spine patients with hardware without increasing treatment time.