Significance of prone positioning in planning treatment for esophageal cancer

Abstract

The treatment of esophageal cancer is made difficult by the close proximity of the esophagus to the spinal cord and the requirement to treat the esophageal target volume to doses greater than or equal to 60 Gy while limiting the spinal cord dose to less than or equal to 46 Gy. By placing the patient in the prone position, the esophagus can be displaced away from the spinal cord. We explored the results of this commonly used technique on 16 patients who have undergone simulation in both supine and prone positions. Both AP and lateral orthogonal radiographs were obtained in both positions. The distance between contrast material in the esophagus and spinal cord was noted in at least four transverse planes through the thoracic esophagus on each of the 16 patients. These four transverse planes were located at 3 cm above the carina, at the carina, 3 cm below the carina and 6 cm below the carina. The mean displacement (1 SD) of the esophagus away from the spinal cord when the patient was in the prone position compared to supine at each of these levels was 1.3 (± 0.8) cm, 1.8 (± 0.9) cm, 1.8 (± 1.0) cm, and 1.9 (± 1.1) cm. The range of displacement for all 64 displacement determinations was 0 to 4.2 cm with a mean of 1.7 cm. To evaluate further the consequences of prone positioning on treatment planning and doses received to target volumes and critical structures, we performed 3-dimensional treatment planning with a patient in both prone and supine positions. The requirements were to achieve a tumor volume dose of 60 Gy while keeping the spinal cord dose below 46 Gy. Two types of conventional treatment plans were examined in prone and supine positions. A 6-field plan consisted of delivery of 40 Gy through a large 3-field beam arrangement followed by delivery of 20 Gy through a similar 3-field cone down. An 8-field plan involved the delivery of 30 Gy through AP/PA beams followed by a 3-field beam arrangement to 40 Gy and a subsequent 3-field cone-down for the final 20 Gy. Comparison of dose volume histograms revealed that the 6-field plan spared relatively more heart whereas the 8-field plan spared relatively more lung. Regarding the primary consideration of coverage of target volume with avoidance of spinal cord, prone positioning was superior to supine positioning whether 6- or 8-field arrangements were used.