- Joined
- May 18, 2021
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 260
What margins do you guys use for lung SBRT assuming you create an ITV from MIP?
MIP is garbage for ITV on SBRT, IMO it's just a way to check yourself after contours are done. SBRT ITVs contoured solely on MIP may only be accurate 60-70% of the time.
4D CT all phases FTW
5 mmsame, 5mm
A very good method. Unfortunately, not everyone as you know can be reliable breath holders (although people reliably "hit the mark" with breath holding way more than I ever expected).I just do 3 breath holds and boolean them to create itv. Then 5 mm. I breath hold all my sbrts if possible.
We must not get the same kind of SBRT pts lol. We're not talking healthy left sided breast pts hereI just do 3 breath holds and boolean them to create itv. Then 5 mm. I breath hold all my sbrts if possible.
Do you do inhaled. exhaled and relaxed breath holds as your 3. Or are the 3 the same (with boolean taking care of inherent errors?)?I just do 3 breath holds and boolean them to create itv. Then 5 mm. I breath hold all my sbrts if possible.
Same 3. All dibh. Fuse bone to bone. Re confidence in setup we use variant rpm plus cbct plus c-rad surface guidance/monitoring. Beam off if rpm transponder moves out of range. Overall feel pretty confident about setup.Do you do inhaled. exhaled and relaxed breath holds as your 3. Or are the 3 the same (with boolean taking care of inherent errors?)?
either would seem to work.
You have the M6? Just curious what you think about it...3 mm, no ITV. I treat on CK - don't hate me
Even if it doesn't move (like apex)?I just do 3 breath holds and boolean them to create itv. Then 5 mm. I breath hold all my sbrts if possible.
We upgraded to S7. I think it's the bee's knees. We can treat tiny primaries and mets in the lung without very large target expansion.You have the M6? Just curious what you think about it...
We don't really have any throughput issues. I'm comfortable with reproducibility. However minimal, the dosimetry is better. It standardizes everything from a therapist pov, and is another way to make sure they stay sharp doing breath hold. Most of my lungs are stage iii or iv, so keeping them comfortable with lung sbrt dibh for the one a month I do is worthwhile. May scrap in the future as well.Even if it doesn't move (like apex)?
I actually used to breath hold every lung SBRT patient who could hold their breath. My rationale was that it always drops the lung V20 and therefore toxicity. But then I was thinking... if you are using coplanar arcs... how much tissue are you actually sparing when the tumor is in the apex of the lung? Yes the V20 drops.... but most of the movement of the lung is inferior so you aren't really radiating that tissue anyway. So the other partners made me stop...
We upgraded to S7. I think it's the bee's knees. We can treat tiny primaries and mets in the lung without very large target expansion.
Both fiducials and surface tracking. In cases of larger tumors, it can visualize internal movement in both cameras which can be done without fiducials.What does it gate based on? Fiducials? Surface tracking?
3 mm, no ITV. I treat on CK - don't hate me
The phrase in 2021 is "don't @ me"
And you didn't say it, so now i'mma @ you
@Gfunk6
CK still requires Fiducials right? Never made sense to me to advocate for that in LUNG SBRT of all places.
What has been the complication rate of fiducial placement necessary for CK treatment in your patient population? Do you think that rate is worth the dosimetric benefits CK gives you, across all patients?
I presume no empiric SBRT patients being treated on CK, right?
60% of cases overall require fiducials, 40% can be treated without.
Since we have a dedicated thoracic surgeon using Super Dimensional Bronchoscopy to place fiducials we haven't had a single complication.
Enb has been huge in reducing complications, namely pneumothorax with CT-guided bx which were fairly significant. The reps have asked us about using fiducials/placement during bronchoscopy but i feel fairly comfortable with 4Dct and cbct at this point60% of cases overall require fiducials, 40% can be treated without.
Since we have a dedicated thoracic surgeon using Super Dimensional Bronchoscopy to place fiducials we haven't had a single complication.
"I used to be Snow White, but I drifted," said Mae West. I used to insist on gating. I used to insist on fiducials. I had ~90% local controls (yes, I measure and graph my outcomes over time). I then went to a place that had neither gating nor superstring theory bronchoscopy. I still wanted to do SBRT; maybe my case selection for 3-5 fx got a little more strict. You do use a slightly different workflow. Yet I still had ~90% local controls over time. Bob Timmerman has a quote too: "SBRT is unique in the realm of high-tech radiation oncology in that outcomes are dependent more on the training of staff and physicians than the style of technology used." We need to remember: Bob was doing SBRT for a while AP/PA on a non-IGRT linac and reporting good cancer outcomes. He had a couple toxicity disasters but that's neither here nor there.Fiducials for lung SBRT was something never done at my residency institution, but a couple of the docs in my current practice will occasionally do it.
Does anyone have a sense for how common it is, overall? If @Gfunk6 is doing it 60% of the time, that's a lot higher than I would have guessed. Similar to the SpaceOAR debate, it seems like you're doing something invasive prophylactically for a potential (but debatable) clinical benefit down the road.
I experience a lot of angst over this. Have I done SBRT without fiducials with good outcomes? Yes. Have I done SBRT with fiducials with good outcomes? Yes. Have I seen toxicity happen because fiducials were placed, or have I seen toxicity happen without fiducials that might have been avoided had they been placed? Yes and yes. Same with SpaceOAR.
Angst!
I think there's a number of series out now treating without tissue. In Japan, it happens quite often supposedly.5. Ultimately you need a biopsy to treat. Our local referring docs now drop a fiducial at the same time as biopsy because they know they will be sending to us for SBRT
I think there's a number of series out now treating without tissue. In Japan, it happens quite often supposedly.
I’ve treated without tissue on many occasions when there is clear progression on serial scans and either a biopsy is non-diagnostic/the risk of pneumothorax is significant.There are many ways to do lung SBRT. At the end of the day, the efficacy is so high and the toxicity so low that I think we are splitting hairs to see what is better. Things that work for me with CK:
1. Free breathing, no breath hold or compression required
2. Arms down comfortably at side and no tattoos
3. Able to use very thick memory foam pad over hard, fiberglass couch
4. Patients don’t necessarily breathe the same way each day, a new Synchrony is model is built per fraction
5. Ultimately you need a biopsy to treat. Our local referring docs now drop a fiducial at the same time as biopsy because they know they will be sending to us for SBRT
The patients we see for lung SBRT are often frail non-surgical candidates, with COPD, on oxygen, multiple comorbidities, poor PS, etc. I definitely disagree that you always need a biopsy to treat.
How long does each fraction of SBRT take with the S7? That was my biggest gripe with the CK.There are many ways to do lung SBRT. At the end of the day, the efficacy is so high and the toxicity so low that I think we are splitting hairs to see what is better. Things that work for me with CK:
1. Free breathing, no breath hold or compression required
2. Arms down comfortably at side and no tattoos
3. Able to use very thick memory foam pad over hard, fiberglass couch
4. Patients don’t necessarily breathe the same way each day, a new Synchrony is model is built per fraction
5. Ultimately you need a biopsy to treat. Our local referring docs now drop a fiducial at the same time as biopsy because they know they will be sending to us for SBRT
Depends on target size. However, if you use MLC head and VOLO (the latest iteration of CK's inverse planning software), beam on time is generally 10-15 minHow long does each fraction of SBRT take with the S7? That was my biggest gripe with the CK.
Is there an advantage to having 1 linac and 1 CK vs. 2 Linacs with 1 of them being SBRT/SRS enabled?Depends on target size. However, if you use MLC head and VOLO (the latest iteration of CK's inverse planning software), beam on time is generally 10-15 min
I'll take two beam matched SBRT linacs all day over anything else, personallyIs there an advantage to having 1 linac and 1 CK vs. 2 Linacs with 1 of them being SBRT/SRS enabled?
That definitely makes it easy during downtime, but isn’t it rather cost inefficient to have two sbrt enabled linacs? I suppose the gains of being able to flex patients during downtime might outweigh the costs of two sbrt linacs.I'll take two beam matched SBRT linacs all day over anything else, personally
I think there's a number of series out now treating without tissue. In Japan, it happens quite often supposedly.
That definitely makes it easy during downtime, but isn’t it rather cost inefficient to have two sbrt enabled linacs? I suppose the gains of being able to flex patients during downtime might outweigh the costs of two sbrt linacs.
I've done it several timesWe do it in academics at the places I'm familiar with.
Is this not common in the community?
I have always thought that risk of pneumothorax or other complications in someone with unhealthy lungs is higher than risk of lung SBRT (assuming small target, not ultra-central, good technique, etc).
Likewise, usually get pulmonary opinion and document in chart as well. I like to have multiple scans showing radiographic progression, including the petI've done it several times
Precisely. CK will have its own planning system and you can't flex it to any other machine if it goes down, only issue with beam matching is the edge won't match with a standard truebeam given the micro MLC and field size differencesThat definitely makes it easy during downtime, but isn’t it rather cost inefficient to have two sbrt enabled linacs? I suppose the gains of being able to flex patients during downtime might outweigh the costs of two sbrt linacs.
Likewise, usually get pulmonary opinion and document in chart as well. I like to have multiple scans showing radiographic progression, including the pet
Precisely. CK will have its own planning system and you can't flex it to any other machine if it goes down, only issue with beam matching is the edge won't match with a standard truebeam given the micro MLC and field size differences
I feel comfortable treating without tissue when nodule is 1) enlarging on multiple scans + 2) PET-avid +3) pt a smoker + 4) either biopsy is considered 'unsafe' by pulm/IR or two attempts were made it was non-diagnostic. In rare instances, I have treated without all of these factors, but I usually prefer to have all of them.Likewise, usually get pulmonary opinion and document in chart as well. I like to have multiple scans showing radiographic progression, including the pet
There are many ways to do lung SBRT. At the end of the day, the efficacy is so high and the toxicity so low that I think we are splitting hairs to see what is better. Things that work for me with CK:
1. Free breathing, no breath hold or compression required
2. Arms down comfortably at side and no tattoos
3. Able to use very thick memory foam pad over hard, fiberglass couch
4. Patients don’t necessarily breathe the same way each day, a new Synchrony is model is built per fraction
5. Ultimately you need a biopsy to treat. Our local referring docs now drop a fiducial at the same time as biopsy because they know they will be sending to us for SBRT
Yea to clarify I meant two modern linacs, only one of which has all the optional sbrt/SRS bells and whistles (micro MLC, 6D couch, OSMS, etc). E.g. Edge and true beam, or two true beams. I just don’t see the point of having two linacs with all the expensive extras, just so you can switch your sbrt patients back and forth during downtime. I do think there’s an advantage to being able to flex all your non-sbrt patients howeverWe do it in academics at the places I'm familiar with.
Is this not common in the community?
I have always thought that risk of pneumothorax or other complications in someone with unhealthy lungs is higher than risk of lung SBRT (assuming small target, not ultra-central, good technique, etc).
All the employed positions I see nowadays are only installing SBRT capable linacs. Some of the private groups or low resource environments are still running old setups to maximize efficiency, but those machines are getting so antiquated that when they get replaced it's usually with a new SBRT capable machine. For me it's just a question of which features you're buying with the machine (6D couch, surface tracking techniques, microMLC, etc).
This comes to a philosophical question that everyone seems to be asking nowadays. Is there anything you can do with a CK that you can't do with a well equipped "swiss army knife" linac like an Edge? I can't think of anything. So on this I'll agree with medgator. I just want one of those machines to have microMLCs, 6D couch, and OSMS.
You cant treat large imrt/3D plans on an edge or truebeam stxYea to clarify I meant two modern linacs, only one of which has all the optional sbrt/SRS bells and whistles (micro MLC, 6D couch, OSMS, etc). E.g. Edge and true beam, or two true beams. I just don’t see the point of having two linacs with all the expensive extras, just so you can switch your sbrt patients back and forth during downtime. I do think there’s an advantage to being able to flex all your non-sbrt patients however