Effect of body mass index on shifts in ultrasound-based image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy for abdominal malignancies

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Radiotherapy and Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.86). 10/2008; 91(1):114-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.08.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated whether corrective shifts determined by daily ultrasound-based image-guidance correlate with body mass index (BMI) of patients treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) for abdominal malignancies. The utility of daily image-guidance, particularly for patients with BMI>25.0, is examined.
Total 3162 ultrasound-directed shifts were performed in 86 patients. Direction and magnitude of shifts were correlated with pretreatment BMI. Bivariate statistical analysis and analysis of set-up correction data were performed using systematic and random error calculations.
Total 2040 daily alignments were performed. Average 3D vector of set-up correction for all patients was 12.1mm/fraction. Directional and absolute shifts and 3D vector length were significantly different between BMI cohorts. 3D displacement averaged 4.9 mm/fraction and 6.8mm/fraction for BMI < or = 25.0 and BMI>25.0, respectively. Systematic error in all axes and 3D vector was significantly greater for BMI>25.0. Differences in random error were not statistically significant.
Set-up corrections derived from daily ultrasound-based IG-IMRT of abdominal tumors correlated with BMI. Daily image-guidance may improve precision of IMRT delivery with benefits assessed for the entire population, particularly patients with increased habitus. Requisite PTV margins suggested in the absence of daily image-guidance are significantly greater in patients with BMI>25.0.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A large body of epidemiological evidence links obesity to increased cancer incidence, with some studies also indicating poorer survival in obese patients with cancer. Obese patients face several specific challenges related to diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Reduced participation in cancer screening programmes, lower tumour-marker expression and issues with medical imaging among obese individuals complicate cancer diagnosis. Chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in obese patients with cancer is affected by altered pharmacokinetics and hormone levels. In addition, the precision of radiotherapy might be adversely affected in this population by greater skin motility and increased motion of internal organs. Obese patients also face higher risk of minor complications after surgery. There is a need for additional research addressing issues specifically associated with the clinical management of obese patients with cancer, including comorbidity, polypharmacy, and problems related to sarcopenia and health-related quality of life. This Review summarizes the available literature addressing the clinical management of obese patients with cancer and discusses opportunities to improve the cancer care of these patients.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 07/2013; 10(9). DOI:10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.120 · 15.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of the present study was to demonstrate risk factors affecting the interfractional variation in whole pelvic irradiation. Daily image acquisitions of 101 patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancy were undertaken using a kilo-voltage orthogonal on-board imager. The baseline deviation (the shift between the initial treatment and each fraction; Value(Base)) and day-to-day variation (the shift between the previous treatment and each fraction; Value(DD)) were measured. The standard deviations (SD) along the x- (right-left), y- (cranial-caudal), and z- (anterior-posterior) axes (SD[x], SD[y], and SD[z], respectively), the 3D vector of the SD (SD[3D]), and the mean of 3D shift (mean[3D]) were calculated in each patient. Various clinical factors, lumbar pelvic balance and rotation, and the shift of 5 consecutive fractions from the initial treatment (Value(5Fx)) were investigated as risk factors. The prone set-up showed a larger mean(Base)[3D] than in the supine position (p =0 .063). A body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2) resulted in the largest mean(DD)[3D] (p = 0.078) and SD(DD)[3D] (p = 0.058). All the SD(5Fx) along the x-, y-, and z-axes had moderate linear relationships with SD(Base) and SD(DD) (p < 0.001). The SD(5Fx)[3D] also had a moderate linear relationship with the mean(Base)[3D], mean(DD)[3D], SD(Base)[3D], and SD(DD)[3D] (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the SD(5Fx) had the same significant relationship with SD(Base) and SD(DD) (p < 0.001). A BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) was associated with the largest SD(DD)[x] (p = 0.003). Close surveillance through high-quality and frequent image guidance is recommended for patients with extensive variations of the initial five consecutive fractions or obesity.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 02/2012; 188(5):395-401. DOI:10.1007/s00066-011-0049-0 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: To evaluate the impact interfraction prostate (CTV1) motion corrections on doses delivered to seminal vesicles (CTV2) and lymph nodes (CTV3), and to determine ideal planning target volume (PTV) margins for these targets with prostate-based position verification. Material and methods: Retrospective analysis based on 253 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies of 28 patients. The isocenter-shift method was used to estimate the interfraction prostate and bony shift effects on the original plan coverage. Friedman's test was used to assess statistical significance between dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters which were calculated for prostate-based sum plans, bony-based sum plans and original treatment plans. The van Herk formula was used to determine the set-up margin size for prostate-based verification. Results: The tracked shifts influenced the minimum, maximum and mean CTV2 and CTV3 doses, with a range differential of 0.17% - 2.63% (prostate shifts) and 0.13% - 1.92% (bony shifts) compared to the corresponding original parameters. Friedman's test revealed significant differences in the minimum doses to the CTV3 and maximum doses to both the CTV2 and CTV3. The calculated set-up margins of 1.22 cm (vertical), 0.19 cm (longitudinal) and 0.39 cm (lateral) should be added to CTV3 while performing prostate-based positioning. Conclusion: To avoid geographical miss during simultaneous irradiation of independently moving targets (CTV1-3) appropriate margins should be used in accordance with the position verification method used. Based on our findings the following margin sizes should be used: 0.7 cm for the CTV1, 0.8 - 0.9 cm for the CTV2 , and asymmetric 1.0 cm (vertically) and 0.5 cm (other axes) for the CTV3.
    Physica Medica 02/2014; 30:228-233. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2013.06.003 · 1.85 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 15, 2014