Immobilization and image-guidance methods for radiation therapy of limb extremity soft tissue sarcomas: Results of a multi-institutional survey

IMRiS phase II study of IMRT in limb sarcomas: Results of the pre-trial QA facility questionnaire and workshop

INTRODUCTION

Soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities (STSE) are rare malignancies. We report current UK practice for immobilisation of soft tissue sarcoma of STSE, as part of the initial study set-up within the IMRiS trial, a phase II study of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma.

METHODS

A facility questionnaire (FQ) was circulated to 29 IMRiS centres investigating the variation in immobilisation devices, planning techniques, and imaging protocols. A workshop was held to address concerns raised by centres. It focused on STSE immobilisation and patient set-up. Robustness of patient set-up at each centre was evaluated based on the following criteria: evidence of local set-up audit, calculation of margins based on set-up audit results, imaging frequency, and number of patients treated per centre per annum.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (93%) questionnaires were returned. 30% (8/27) of responders routinely treated STSE with IMRT. The remaining 70% (19/27) had little or no experience with IMRT for STSE. Vacuum bags were the most frequent immobilisation device (9/27), followed by thermoplastic shells (7/27). Nine centres had audited their local set-up; however, only 4 had calculated margins in response to the results. Ten centres were classified as having high level of robustness.

CONCLUSIONS

Immobilisation devices and planning techniques for STSE are inconsistent across centres. Robustness of set-up is an important tool to ensure quality of results in a multicentre trial setting with such different levels of experience. The IMRiS trial Quality Assurance programme encourages centres to assess robustness of set-up through local audit and subsequent calculation of treatment margins.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This is the first study that used robustness criteria to tailor QA support to individual centres.

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.

Impact of Immobilization on Interfractional Errors for Upper Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma Radiation Therapy

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Owing to the rare nature and presentation of upper extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) and the high mobility of associated anatomy, various patient positioning strategies are used for radiation therapy. The purpose of this study is to measure the interfractional setup errors associated with upper extremity sarcomas using different immobilization methods through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.

METHODS

All patients treated with daily CBCT guidance for upper extremity STSs during 2014-2015 were identified and triaged based on type of immobilization. After defining an optimal region of interest for image registration, daily CBCT images were automatically registered to reference CT images to quantify positional discrepancies. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and one-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine significance of data.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients with upper extremity sarcoma met inclusion criteria: 13 were treated to the shoulder/axilla/upper arm and 4 to the arm/elbow/forearm. Three main types of immobilization were identified: vacuum cradle with custom thermoplastic shell, vacuum cradle alone, and no immobilization accessory used. Patient repositioning occurred if translational and rotational displacements were larger than 1 mm and 5°, respectively, as per institutional guidelines. Patient repositioning rates were 18% for vacuum cradle with thermoplastic shells, 15% for vacuum cradles only, and 6% for no immobilization accessories. Mean translational displacements in right/left (R/L), superior/inferior (S/I), and anterior/posterior (A/P) directions were -0.04 ± 0.33 cm, 0.32 ± 0.33 cm, and 0.12 ± 0.25 cm for vacuum cradle with thermoplastic shell; 0.25 ± 0.10 cm, -0.07 ± 0.22 cm, and 0.00 ± 0.17 cm for vacuum cradle alone; and 0.14 ± 0.15 cm, 0.08 ± 0.45 cm, and -0.01 ± 0.24 cm for no immobilization. For all patients, rotational displacements in the pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.15 ± 1.99°, 0.31 ± 2.11°, and -0.21 ± 1.76°, respectively. There were significant (P < .05) differences in systematic error values for all translational and rotational axes between immobilization methods.

CONCLUSION

Large interfractional errors, especially in the rotational axes, were observed, regardless of immobilization strategy. Small study population and unequal representation of different parts of the upper extremity are identified limitations. The need for better immobilization techniques for upper extremity STS treatments is clearly demonstrated.