Advertisement

Medical Oncology

, 37:3 | Cite as

Prehabilitation for patient positioning: pelvic exercises assist in minimizing inter-fraction sacral slope variability during radiation therapy

  • Lauren O’LoughlinEmail author
  • Alexander Lukez
  • Yunsheng Ma
  • Jennifer Baima
  • Janaki Moni
Original Paper

Abstract

Reproducible patient positioning is essential for precision in radiation therapy (RT) delivery. We tested the hypothesis that a structured daily pre-treatment stretching regimen is both feasible and effective for minimizing variability in positioning, as measured by sacral slope angles (SSA). Eight female subjects undergoing pelvic radiotherapy performed a structured daily hip exercise regimen (extension and external rotation) immediately prior to both simulation imaging and daily treatment, throughout their RT course. This exercising cohort was compared to a retrospective review of 20 subjects (17 women and 3 men) undergoing RT, who had usual care. SSA measurements from daily pre-treatment imaging were compared to SSA measurements from the simulation CT. The average variation in SSA among the intervention subjects was 0.91° (± 0.58°), with a range among subjects of 0.57°–1.27°. The average variation for the control subjects was 2.27° (± 1.43°), ranging 1.22°–5.09°. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0001). There was a statistically significant SSA variation between groups at each week of treatment. There was no significant variation among the intervention subjects between week 1 and later weeks, whereas subjects in the control group demonstrated significant SSA variation between week 1 and later weeks. We demonstrated a significant decrease in the variability of SSA by implementing a simple pre-treatment exercise program, while control subjects exhibited increasing variation in SSA over the course of treatment. We conclude that there is a potential benefit of prehabilitation during pelvic RT; however, a larger randomized control trial is required to confirm the findings.

Clinical Trial: This research project was approved by the University of Massachusetts Medical School IRB (IRB ID H00012353) on January 21, 2017. The study is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, found with identifier NCT03242538.

Keywords

Prehabilitation Pelvic cancer radiotherapy Inter-fraction reproducibility Exercise therapy Patient Setup 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of our patients; we are very grateful for their diligent participation in our research. We appreciate efforts by Mashhood Bodla and Priya Moni, PhD, who began work on this research topic. We thank the University of Massachusetts Medical School for the Joseph P Healey Award which funded medical student summer research stipends. Andrew Boylan and Wasih Kamran assisted with patient education and ensuring daily patient exercise compliance. Finally, we thank all staff within the Department of Radiation Oncology at UMass Memorial Health Care in Worcester, MA for their support and assistance.

Funding

This study was funded by the Joseph P Healey Award for medical student summer research. This is an institutional grant supported by the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (include name of committee + reference number) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Silver JK, Baima J, Mayer RS. Impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation: an essential component of quality care and survivorship. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(5):295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saleh KJ, Lee LW, Gandhi R, et al. Quadriceps strength in relation to total knee arthroplasty outcomes. Instr Course Lect. 2010;59:119–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li C, Carli F, Lee L, et al. Impact of a trimodal prehabilitation program on functional recovery after colorectal cancer surgery: a pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1072–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stout NL, Baima J, Swisher AK, Winters-Stone KM, Welsh J. A systematic review of exercise systematic reviews in the cancer literature (2005–2017). PM&R. 2017;9(9):S347–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaffray DA, Gospodarowicz MK. Radiation therapy for cancer. In: Gelband H, Jha P, Sankaranarayanan R, et al., editors. Cancer: disease control priorities, vol. 3. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0349-9_ch14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedman ET, Abdel-Wahab M, Kumar AMS. Influence of radiation treatment technique on outcome and toxicity in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2017;6:413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharp L, Lewin F, Johansson H, Payne D, Gerhardsson A, Rutgvist LT. Randomized trail on two types of thermoplastic masks for patient immobilization during radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2005;6(1):250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kapanen M, Laaksomaa M, Tulijoki T, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Hyödynmaa S. Effects of remedies made in patient setup process on residual setup errors and margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy based on 2D image guidance. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2015;20(4):292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li XA, Qi XS, Pitterle M, Kalakota K, Mueller K, Erickson BA, Wang D, Schultz CJ, Firat SY, Wilson JF. Interfractional variations in patient setup and anatomic change assessed by daily computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2007;68(2):581–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung HT, Xia P, Chan LW, Park-Somers E, Roach M. Does image-guided radiotherapy improve toxicity profile in whole pelvic-treated high-risk prostate cancer? Comparison between IG-IMRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2009;73(1):53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laursen LV, Elstrom UV, Vestergaard A, Muren LP, Petersen JB, Lindegaard JC, Grau C, Tanderup K. Residual rotational set-up errors after daily cone-beam CT image guided radiotherapy of locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;105:220–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukez A, O’Loughlin L, Bodla M, Baima J, Moni J. Positioning of port films for radiation: variability is present. Med Oncol. 2018;335(5):77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groher M, Kopp P, Drerup M, Deutschmann H, Sedlmayer F, Wolf F. An IGRT margin concept for pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer. Strahlenther Oncol. 2017;193:750–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fergusson D, Hutton B, Drodge A. The epidemiology of major joint contractures: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;456:22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerrigan DC, Lee LW, Collins JJ, Riley PO, Lipsitz LA. Reduced hip extension during walking: healthy elderly and fallers versus young adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(1):26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris KA, Haboubi NY. Pelvic radiation therapy: between delight and disaster. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7:11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bazire L, Xu H, Foy J-P, Amessis M, Malhaire C, Cao K, et al. Pelvic insufficiency fracture (PIF) incidence in patients treated with intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for gynaecological or anal cancer: single-institution experience and review of the literature. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nicholas S, Chen L, Choflet A, Fader A, Guss Z, Hazell S, Song DY, Tran PD, Viswanathan AN. Pelvic radiation and normal tissue toxicity. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017;27(4):358–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.04.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frøseth TC, Strickert T, Solli KS, Salvesen Ø, Frykholm G, Reidunsdatter RJ. A randomized study of the effect of patient positioning on setup reproducibility and dose distribution to organs at risk in radiotherapy of rectal cancer patients. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:217.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0524-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siddiqui F, Shi C, Papanikolaou N, Fuss M. Image-guidance protocol comparison: supine and prone set-up accuracy for pelvic radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(7):1344–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roussouly Pierre, Nnadi Colin. Sagittal plane deformity: an overview of interpretation and management. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1824–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee J, Liu S, Chen YJ, Lin J, Wu MH, Wu CJ. Image-guided study of interfraction and intrafraction set-up variability and margins in reverse semi-decubitus breast radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2018;102(3):S132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S. adults: compliance with the physical activity guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(4):454–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, Department of Population and Quantitative Health ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedics and Physical RehabilitationUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations