Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver tumors: impact of daily setup corrections and day- to day anatomic anatomic variations on dose in target and organs at risk

Alejandra Mendez Romero, Roel Zinkstok, Wouter Wunderink, RM van Os, Hans Joosten, Yvette Seppenwoolde, Peter Nowak, Rene Brandwijk, Kees Verhoef, J.N.M. IJzermans, Peter Levendag, Ben Heijmen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

50 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose: To assess day-to-day differences between planned and delivered target volume (TV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose distributions in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and to investigate the dosimetric impact of setup corrections. Methods and Materials: For 14 patients previously treated with SBRT, the planning CT scan and three treatment scans (one for each fraction) were included in this study. For each treatment scan, two dose distributions were calculated: one using the planned setup for the body frame (no correction), and one using the clinically applied (corrected) setup derived from measured tumor displacements. Per scan, the two dose distributions were mutually compared, and the clinically delivered distribution was compared with planning. Doses were recalculated in equivalent 2-Gy fraction doses. Statistical analysis was performed with the linear mixed model. Results: With setup corrections, the mean loss in TV coverage relative to planning was 1.7%, compared with 6.8% without corrections. For calculated equivalent uniform doses, these figures were 2.3% and 15.5%, respectively. As for the TV, mean deviations of delivered OAR doses from planning were small (between -0.4 and +0.3 Gy), but the spread was much larger for the OARs. In contrast to the TV, the mean impact of setup corrections on realized OAR doses was close to zero, with large positive and negative exceptions. Conclusions: Daily correction of the treatment setup is required to obtain adequate TV coverage. Because of day-to-day patient anatomy changes, large deviations in OAR doses from planning did occur. On average, setup corrections had no impact on these doses. Development of new procedures for image guidance and adaptive protocols is warranted. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1201-1208
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Research programs

  • EMC MM-03-32-04
  • EMC MM-03-47-02-A
  • EMC MM-03-47-11
  • EMC MM-04-47-07

Cite this