Browse > Article

Development of Immobilization Devices for Patients with Pelvic Malignancies and a Feasibility Evaluation during Radiotherapy  

Park, Jong-Min (Department of Radiation Applying Life Science, Seoul National University Graduate School)
Park, Yang-Kyun (Department of Radiation Applying Life Science, Seoul National University Graduate School)
Cho, Woong (Department of Radiation Applying Life Science, Seoul National University Graduate School)
Park, Charn-Il (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Ha, Sung-Whan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Radiation Oncology Journal / v.25, no.2, 2007 , pp. 134-144 More about this Journal
Abstract
[ $\underline{Purpose}$ ]: Immobilization devices that improve the setup reproducibility of pelvic cancer patients and that provide comfort to patients during radiotherapy were designed and the feasibility of the devices was evaluated. $\underline{Materials\;and\;Methods}$: A customized device was designed to immobilize a knee, thigh, and foot of a patient. Sixty-one patients with prostate cancer were selected and were divided into two groups-with or without devices. The setup errors were measured with respect to bony landmarks. The difference between digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) and simulation films, and the differences between DRR and portal films were measured. $\underline{Results}$: The left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP) and craniocaudal (CC) errors between the DRR and simulation films were $1.5{\pm}0.9\;mm$, $3.0{\pm}3.6\;mm$, and $1.6{\pm}0.9\;mm$, respectively without devices. The errors were reduced to $1.3{\pm}1.9\;mm$, $1.8{\pm}1.5\;mm$ and $1.1{\pm}1.1\;mm$, respectively with the devices. The errors between DRR and portal films were $1.6{\pm}1.2\;mm$, $4.0{\pm}4.1\;mm$, and $4.2{\pm}5.5\;mm$, respectively without the devices and were reduced to $1.0{\pm}1.8\;mm$, $1.2{\pm}0.9\;mm$, and $1.2{\pm}0.8\;mm$, respectively, with the devices. The standard deviations among the portal films were 1.1 mm, 2.1 mm, and 1.0 mm at each axis without the devices and 0.9 mm, 1.6 mm and 0.8 mm with the devices. The percentage of setup errors larger than 3 mm and 5 mm were significantly reduced by use of the immobilization devices. $\underline{Conclusion}$: The designed devices improved the setup reproducibility for all three directions and significantly reduced critical setup errors.
Keywords
Radiation therapy; Prostate cancer; Immoblization devices; Positioning reproducibility;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Pollack A, Zegars GK, Starkschall G, et al. Conventional vs conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary results of dosimetry and acute toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;343:555-564
2 Dunscombe p, Loos S, Leszczynski K. Sizes and sources of field placement error in routine irradiation for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 1993;26:174-176   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Suh YL, Yi BY, Shin SA, et al. A feasibility study on the abdomen immobilization with air injected balloon blanket. Korean J Med Phys 2002;13:176-180
4 Faiz M. The physics of radiation therapy. 3rd ed. Philadelphia; Lippincott williams & wilkins, 2003:220-226
5 Corn BW, Hanks GE, Schultheiss TE, et al. Conformal treatment of prostate cancer with improved targeting: superior prostate-specific antigen response compared to standard treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:325-330   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Schultheiss TE, Hanks GE, Hunt MA, et al. Incidence of and factors related to late complications in conformal and conventional radiation treatment of cancer of the prostate. Int H Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:643-649   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Garcia R, Oozer R, Le Thanh H, et al. Radiotherapie confirmationelle des cancers de la prostate: apport de la contention pelvienne et de nouveaux reperes de positionnement. Cancer Radiother 1997;1:307-313   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
8 Andrew K, Val G, Nicole H, Sandra T. A randomized trial evaluating rigid immobilization for pelvic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56: 1105-1111   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Fukunga-Johnson N, Sandler HM, McLaughlin PW, et al. Results of 3D conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38:311-317   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Soften EM, Hanks GE, Hutn MA, et al. Conformal static field radiation therapy treatment of early prostate cancer versus non-conformal techniques: a reduction in acute morbidity. Int H Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;24:485-488   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Huh SN, Cho W, Park YK, Ha SW. Development of devices for improving the reproducibility of patient positioning on a breast board. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2005;23: 123-130
12 CAtton C, Lebar L, Warde p, et al. Improvement in total positioning error for lateral prostatic fields using a soft immobilization device. Radiother Oncol 1997:44:265-270   DOI   ScienceOn
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 2000:48:657-665   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Hanks GE, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA, et al. Factors influencing incidence of acute grade 2 morbidity in conformal and standard radiation treatment of prostate cancer. Int H Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31 :25-29   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Song PY, Washington M, Vaida F, et al. A comparison of four patient immobilization devices in the treatment of prostate cancer patients with three dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;34:213-219   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Gildersleve J, Dearnaley D, Evans p, et al. Reproducibility of patient positioning during routine radiotherapy, as assessed by an integrated megavoltage imaging system. Radiother Oncol 1995;35: 151-160   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Rosenthal SA, Roach M III. Goldsmith BJ, et al. Immobilization improves the reproducibility of patient position¬ing during six-field conformal radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:921-926   DOI   ScienceOn