Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Two Different Immobilization Devices for Pelvic Region Radiotherapy in Tomotherapy

  • Kim, Dae Gun (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Jung, James J (Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida) ;
  • Cho, Kwang Hwan (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Ryu, Mi Ryeong (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Moon, Seong Kwon (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Bae, Sun Hyun (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Ahn, Jae Ouk (Department of Healthcare Convergence of Medical Informatics, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Jung, Jae Hong (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University)
  • Received : 2016.12.06
  • Accepted : 2016.12.24
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the patient setup errors of two different immobilization devices (Feet Fix: FF and Leg Fix: LF) for pelvic region radiotherapy in Tomotherapy. Thirty six-patients previously treated with IMRT technique were selected, and divided into two groups based on applied immobilization devices (FF versus LF). We performed a retrospective clinical analysis including the mean, systematic, random variation, 3D-error, and calculated the planning target volume (PTV) margin. In addition, a rotational error (angles, $^{\circ}$) for each patient was analyzed using the automatic image registration. The 3D-errors for the FF and the LF groups were 3.70 mm and 4.26 mm, respectively; the LF group value was 15.1% higher than in the FF group. The treatment margin in the ML, SI, and AP directions were 5.23 mm (6.08 mm), 4.64 mm (6.29 mm), 5.83 mm (8.69 mm) in the FF group (and the LF group), respectively, that the FF group was lower than in the LF group. The percentage in treatment fractions for the FF group (ant the LF group) in greater than 5 mm at ML, SI, and AP direction was 1.7% (3.6%), 3.3% (10.7%), and 5.0% (16.1%), respectively. Two different immobilization devices were affected the patient setup errors due to different fixed location in low extremity. The radiotherapy for the pelvic region by Tomotherapy should be considering variation for the rotational angles including Yaw and Pitch direction that incorrect setup error during the treatment. In addition the choice of an appropriate immobilization device is important because an unalterable rotation angle affects the setup error.

Keywords

References

  1. Yartsev S, Kron T, Van Dyk J: Tomotherapy as a tool in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT): current clinical experience and outcomes. Biomed Imaging Interv J 3:e17 (2007)
  2. Schubert LK, Westerly DC, Tome WA, et al: A comprehensive assessment by tumor site of patient setup using daily MVCT imaging from more than 3,800 helical tomotherapy treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:1260-1269 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.054
  3. Van Gestel D, Verellen D, Van DE voorde L, et al: The pothetial of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of head neck cancer. Oncologist 18:697-706 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0424
  4. Forrest LJ, Mackie TR, Ruchala K, et al: The utility of megavoltage computed tomograpy images from a helical tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:1639-1644 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.016
  5. Boswell SA, Jeraj R, Ruchala KJ, et al: A novel method to correct for pitch and yaw patient setup errors in helical tomotherapy. Med Phys 32:1630-1639 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1914543
  6. Jung JH, Cho KH, Moon SK, et al: Rotation error of breast cancer on 3D-CRT in TomoDirect. Prog Med Phys 26:6-11 (2015) https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.1.6
  7. Li JG, Xing L: Inverse Planning incorporating organ motion. Med Phys 27:1573-1578 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.599023
  8. Chen J, Lee RJ, Handrahn D, Sause WT: Intensitymodulated radiotherapy using implanted fiducial markers with daily portal imaging: assessment of prostate organ motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:912-919 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.024
  9. Rabinowitz I, Broomberg J, Goitein M, Mc Carthy K, Leong J: Accuracy of radiation field alignment in clinical practies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:1857-1867 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(85)90046-X
  10. Li XA, Qi XS, Pitterle M, Kalakota K, Mueller K, Erickson BA et al: Interfractional variations in patient setup and anatomic change assessed by daily computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:581-591 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.024
  11. Lee JA, Kim CY, Park YJ, Yoon WS, Lee NK, Yang DS: Interfractional variability in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without thermoplastic pelvic immobilization. Strahlenther Onkol 190:94-99 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0452-9
  12. Mitine C, Hoornaert MT, Dutreix A, Beauduin M: Radiotherapy of pelvic malignancies: impact of two types of rigid immobilisation devices on localisation errors. Radiother Oncol 52:19-27 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00071-7
  13. Malone S, Szanto J, Perry G, et al: A prospective comparison of three systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:657-665 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00682-9
  14. White P, Yee CK, Shan LC, Chung LW, Man NH, Cheung YS: A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 9:1-12 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-1
  15. Melancon AD, Kudchadker RJ, Amos R, et al: Patientspecific and generic immobilization devices for prostate radiotherapy. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology 2:125-132 (2013) https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2013.24017
  16. Saini G, Aqqarwal A, Jafri SA, et al: A comparison between four immobilization systems for pelvic radiation therapy using CBCT and paires kilovoltage portals based image-guided radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther 10:932-936 (2014) https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.138026
  17. Kim YL, Cho KH, Jung JH, et al: Analysis of automatic rigid image-registration on tomotherapy. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology 37:27-47 (2014)
  18. van Herk M: Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 14:52-64 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semradonc.2003.10.003
  19. Haslam JJ, Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Bonta DV, Roeske JC: Setup errors in patinets treated with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy for gynecological malignancies. Med Dosim 30:36-42 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2004.10.007
  20. Alongi F, Fiorino C, Cozzarini C, et al: IMRT significantly reduces acute toxicity of whole-pelvis irradiation in patient treated with post-operative adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after radical proststectomy. Radiother Oncol 93:207-212 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.042
  21. Saw CB, Yakoob R, Enke CA, Lau TP, Ayyangar KM: Immobilization devices for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Med Dosim 26:71-77 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-3947(00)00059-5
  22. Fiorino C, Reni M, Boloqnesi A, Bonini A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R: Set-up error in supine-positioned patients immobilized with two different modalities during conformal tadiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 49:133-141 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00127-3