Abstract

BackgroundThe effects of spinal implants on dose distribution have been studied for conformal treatment plans. However, the dosimetric impact of spinal implants in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatments has not been studied in spatial orientation. In this study we evaluated the effect of spinal implants placed in sawbone vertebra models implanted as in vivo instrumentations.MethodsFour different spinal implant reconstruction techniques were performed using the standard sawbone lumbar vertebrae model; 1. L2-L4 posterior instrumentation without anterior column reconstruction (PI); 2. L2-L4 anterior instrumentation, L3 corpectomy, and anterior column reconstruction with a titanium cage (AIAC); 3. L2-L4 posterior instrumentation, L3 corpectomy, and anterior column reconstruction with a titanium cage (PIAC); 4. L2-L4 anterior instrumentation, L3 corpectomy, and anterior column reconstruction with chest tubes filled with bone cement (AIABc). The target was defined as the spinous process and lamina of the lumbar (L) 3 vertebra. A thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD, LiF:Mg,Ti) was located on the measurement point anterior to the spinal cord. The prescription dose was 8 Gy and the treatment was administered in a single fraction using a CyberKnife® (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). We performed two different treatment plans. In Plan A beam interaction with the rod was not limited. In plan B the rod was considered a structure of avoidance, and interaction between the rod and beam was prevented. TLD measurements were compared with the point dose calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS).Results and discussionIn plan A, the difference between TLD measurement and the dose calculated by the TPS was 1.7 %, 2.8 %, and 2.7 % for the sawbone with no implant, PI, and PIAC models, respectively. For the AIAC model the TLD dose was 13.8 % higher than the TPS dose; the difference was 18.6 % for the AIABc model. In plan B for the AIAC and AIABc models, TLD measurement was 2.5 % and 0.9 % higher than the dose calculated by the TPS, respectively.ConclusionsSpinal implants may be present in the treatment field in patients scheduled to undergo SBRT. For the types of implants studied herein anterior rod instrumentation resulted in an increase in the spinal cord dose, whereas use of a titanium cage had a minimal effect on dose distribution. While planning SBRT in patients with spinal reconstructions, avoidance of the rod and preventing interaction between the rod and beam might be the optimal solution for preventing unexpectedly high spinal cord doses.

Highlights

  • Bone is the third most common site of metastatic cancer, and bone metastasis occurs in approximately 70 % of patients with metastatic breast cancer and prostate cancer [1]

  • Spinal implants may be present in the treatment field in patients scheduled to undergo stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)

  • For the types of implants studied anterior rod instrumentation resulted in an increase in the spinal cord dose, whereas use of a titanium cage had a minimal effect on dose distribution

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Bone is the third most common site of metastatic cancer, and bone metastasis occurs in approximately 70 % of patients with metastatic breast cancer and prostate cancer [1]. Proper treatment of bone metastasis requires interdisciplinary care, and includes analgesics, corticosteroids ( in patients with spinal cord compression), hormonal therapy, bisphosphonates, surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy (RT), radiopharmaceuticals, or any combination of these. Conventional external beam RT provides significant palliation of painful bone metastasis in 50–80 % of patients, but only 33 % of patients achieve complete pain relief at the treated site [5]. Hartsell et al [7] evaluated patients with spinal metastasis separately and only 61 % of patients experienced partial or complete pain relief at 1 month post-treatment. Such studies highlight the need for improved outcomes in patients with spinal metastasis. In this study we evaluated the effect of spinal implants placed in sawbone vertebra models implanted as in vivo instrumentations

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call