4.5 Article

Clinical study on the influence of motion and other factors on stereotactic radiotherapy in the treatment of adrenal gland tumor

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 4295-4299

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S107106

关键词

adrenal gland; gold fiducial; law of motion; CyberKnife; influence factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the adrenal tumor motion law and influence factors in the treatment of adrenal gland tumor and provide a reference value basis for determining the planning target volume margins for therapy. Materials and methods: The subjects considered in this study were 38 adrenal tumor patients treated with CyberKnife with the placement of 45 gold fiducials. Fiducials were implanted into each adrenal tumor using beta-ultrasonic guidance. Motion amplitudes of gold fiducials were measured with a Philips SLS simulator and motion data in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and cranio-caudal directions were obtained. Multiple linear regression models were used to analyze influencing factors. t-Test was used for motion amplitude comparison of different tumor locations along the z-axis. Results: The motion distances were 0.1-0.4 cm (0.27 +/- 0.07 cm), 0.1-0.5 cm (0.31 +/- 0.11 cm), and 0.5-1.2 cm (0.87 +/- 0.21 cm) along the x-, y-, and z-axes, respectively. Motion amplitude along the z-axis may be affected by tumor location, but movement along the other axes was not affected by age, height, body mass, location, and size. Conclusion: The maximum motion distance was along the z-axis. Therefore, this should be the main consideration when defining the planning target volume safety margin. Due to the proximity of the liver, adrenal gland tumor motion amplitude was smaller on the right than the left. This study analyzed adrenal tumor motion amplitude data to evaluate how motion and other factors influence the treatment of adrenal tumor with a goal of providing a reference for stereotactic radiotherapy boundary determination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据