Practical aspects of the application of helical tomotherapy for craniospinal irradiation

We investigated the practical aspects of the application of craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy (HT-CSI) by evaluating interfractional setup errors and intrafractional movement during each treatment in 83 patients undergoing HT-CSI between January 2014 and December 2018. Interfractional setup errors in each axis (mediolateral; ML, craniocaudal; CC, and anteroposterior; AP) were assessed as differences between pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images scanned (zygomatic arch to the C4 spine) and planning CT images. Intrafractional movements were evaluated as the difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment MVCT (T12–L4 spine) images at each fraction. Median interfractional setup error was acceptable in every axis (ML: 1.6 mm, CC: 1.9 mm, AP: 3.1 mm). Seven patients (8.4%) experienced significant intrafractional displacement from 1 to 10 fractions (0.34% for ML, 0.74% for CC, 1.21% for AP). Weight loss grade 1+ during treatment (p = 0.016) was an independent risk factor for significant intrafractional displacement. The risk factor for significant intrafractional movement in pediatric patients was weight loss grade 1+ (p = 0.020), while there was no factor in adults. HT-CSI could be a feasible treatment modality with acceptable setup verification. Inter- and intrafractional errors were acceptable; paying attention to weight loss during treatment is necessary, especially in pediatric patients.

Practical Aspects of the Application of Helical Tomotherapy for Craniospinal Irradiation

We investigated the practical aspects of the application of craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy (HT-CSI) by evaluating interfractional setup errors and intrafractional movement during each treatment in 83 patients undergoing HT-CSI between January 2014 and December 2018. Interfractional setup errors in each axis (mediolateral; ML, craniocaudal; CC, and anteroposterior; AP) were assessed as differences between pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images scanned (zygomatic arch to the C4 spine) and planning CT images. Intrafractional movements were evaluated as the difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment MVCT (T12–L4 spine) images at each fraction. Median interfractional setup error was acceptable in every axis (ML: 1.6 mm, CC: 1.9 mm, AP: 3.1 mm). Seven patients (8.4%) experienced significant intrafractional displacement from 1 to 10 fractions (0.35% for ML, 0.77% for CC, 1.26% for AP). Weight loss grade 1+ during treatment (p=0.016) was an independent risk factor for significant intrafractional displacement. The risk factor for significant intrafractional movement in pediatric patients was weight loss grade 1+ (p=0.020), while there was no factor in adults. HT-CSI could be a feasible treatment modality with acceptable setup verification. Inter- and intrafractional errors were acceptable; paying attention to weight loss during treatment is necessary, especially in pediatric patients.

Long-time clinical experience in patient setup for several particle therapy clinical indications: management of patient positioning and evaluation of setup reproducibility and stability

Objective: Accurate patient positioning is crucial in particle therapy due to the geometrical selectivity of particles. We report and discuss the National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO) experience in positioning accuracy and stability achieved with solid thermoplastic masks fixed on index base plates and assessed by daily orthogonal X-ray imaging. Methods: Positioning data were retrospectively collected (between 2012 and 2018) and grouped according to the treated anatomical site. 19696 fractions of 1325 patients were evaluated. The study was designed to assess: (i) the number of fractions in which a single correction vector was applied(SCV); (ii) the number of fractions in which further setup verification was performed (SV); (iii) the number of fractions in which SV lead to an additional correction within (MCV<5min) or after (MCV>5min) 5 minutes from the first setup correction; (iv) the systematic (Σ) and random (σ) error components of the correction vectors applied. Results: A SCV was applied in 71.5% of fractions, otherwise SV was required. In 30.6% of fractions with SV, patient position was not further revised. In the remaining fractions, MCV<5min and MCV>5min were applied mainly in extracranial and cranial sites respectively. Interfraction Σ was ≤ 1.7 mm/0.7° and σ was ≤ 1.2 mm/0.6° in cranial sites while in extracranial sites Σ was ≤ 5.5 mm/0.9° and σ was ≤4.4 mm/0.9°. Setup residuals were submillimetric in all sites. In cranial patients, maximum intrafractional Σ was 0.8 mm/0.4°. Conclusion: This report extensively quantifies inter- and intrafraction setup accuracy on an institutional basis and confirms the need of image guidance to fully benefit from the geometrical selectivity of particles. Advances in knowledge: The reported analysis provides a board institutional data set on the evaluation of patient immobilization and bony anatomy alignment for several particle therapy clinical indications.