Literature DB >> 10718139

A computerized remote table control for fast on-line patient repositioning: implementation and clinical feasibility.

A Bel1, O Petrascu, I Van de Vondel, L Coppens, N Linthout, D Verellen, G Storme.   

Abstract

A computerized remote control for a Siemens ZXT treatment couch was implemented and its characteristics were investigated to establish its feasibility for on-line setup corrections, using portal imaging. Communication with the table was obtained by connecting it via a serial line to a work station. The treatment couch enables "goto" commands in the three main directions and around the isocenter. The accuracy of the movements after giving such a command was checked and the time for each movement was recorded. First, the movements into a single direction were studied (range of -4 to +4 cm and -4 degrees to +4 degrees). Each command was repeated four times. Second, the table was moved into the three main directions simultaneously. For this experiment a clinically relevant three-dimensional (3-D) normal distribution of shifts was used [N = 200, standard deviation (SD) 5 mm in the three main directions]. This latter experiment was done twice: without and with rotations (a distribution with SD 1 degrees). During the first experiment, with shifts into one direction, no systematic deviations were found. The overall accuracy of the shifts was 0.6 mm (1 SD) in each direction and 0.04 degrees (1 SD) for the rotations. The time required for a translation ranged between 4 and 13 s and for the rotation between 8 and 20 s. The second experiment with the 3-D distribution of setup errors yielded an error in the 3-D vector length equal to 0.96 mm (1 SD), independent of rotations. Shifts were performed in less than 11 s for 95% of the cases without rotations. When rotations were also performed, 95% of the movements finished in less than 16 s. In conclusion, the table movements are accurate and enable on-line setup corrections in daily clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10718139     DOI: 10.1118/1.598838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  9 in total

1.  Electronic portal imaging vs kilovoltage imaging in fiducial marker image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer: an analysis of set-up uncertainties.

Authors:  S Gill; J Thomas; C Fox; T Kron; A Thompson; S Chander; S Williams; K H Tai; G Duchesne; F Foroudi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Adaptive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer-can an old goal evolve into a new standard?

Authors:  David L Schwartz; Lei Dong
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 4.375

3.  Emission guided radiation therapy for lung and prostate cancers: a feasibility study on a digital patient.

Authors:  Qiyong Fan; Akshay Nanduri; Samuel Mazin; Lei Zhu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Toward a planning scheme for emission guided radiation therapy (EGRT): FDG based tumor tracking in a metastatic breast cancer patient.

Authors:  Qiyong Fan; Akshay Nanduri; Jaewon Yang; Tokihiro Yamamoto; Billy Loo; Edward Graves; Lei Zhu; Samuel Mazin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Tracking, gating, free-breathing, which technique to use for lung stereotactic treatments? A dosimetric comparison.

Authors:  Jessica Prunaretty; Pierre Boisselier; Norbert Aillères; Olivier Riou; Sebastien Simeon; Ludovic Bedos; David Azria; Pascal Fenoglietto
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2018-11-24

6.  An investigation of the reproducibility and usefulness of automatic couch motion in complex radiation therapy techniques.

Authors:  Milton K Woo; Bryan Kim
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Patient-specific daily pretreatment setup protocol using electronic portal imaging for radiation therapy.

Authors:  Michael H Wittmer; Thomas M Pisansky; Jon J Kruse; Michael G Herman
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2005-11-21       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  A comparison of computer-controlled versus manual on-line patient setup adjustment.

Authors:  Kristy K Brock; Daniel L McShan; James M Balter
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Performance evaluation of an automated image registration algorithm using an integrated kilovoltage imaging and guidance system.

Authors:  Timothy Fox; Calvin Huntzinger; Peter Johnstone; Tomi Ogunleye; Eric Elder
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 2.102

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.