PURPOSE: To evaluate positioning uncertainties with an infrared body marker-based positioning system (ExacTrac) compared with conventional laser positioning in patients treated for gynecologic carcinomas, and to investigate patient movement during therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were positioned both with a conventional laser system and with the ExacTrac system. Positioning accuracy was evaluated using repeated electronic portal images. Average displacements and overall, systematic, and random errors were calculated and compared for the two positioning methods. Further, inter- and intrafractional patient movement including time trends in positioning displacements, respiratory amplitudes, and breathing frequencies were analyzed by online documentation of body marker movement with the ExacTrac system. RESULTS: Average displacements ranged between -3.6 and 6.7 mm for the three coordinates. Mean systematic and random errors ranged from 1.6 to 3.7 mm and 2.2 to 3.7 mm, respectively, with no significant differences between conventional and ExacTrac positioning (p > 0.07). The main breathing direction was from dorsocaudal to anterocranial in 9 of 10 patients. The mean 3D breathing amplitude in the pelvis was 2.4 mm (0.49-6.96 mm). Significant interfractional and intrafractional time trends were observed concerning breathing amplitudes and positioning displacements. CONCLUSIONS: The observed displacements did not vary significantly between the two evaluated positioning systems. The analysis of registered body marker positions revealed a wide variation in respiratory frequencies, breathing amplitudes, and patient displacements with interfractional and intrafractional time trends. Systems that allow the measurement of each patient's motion characteristics are a necessary requirement for all efforts at individually tailored radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: To evaluate positioning uncertainties with an infrared body marker-based positioning system (ExacTrac) compared with conventional laser positioning in patients treated for gynecologic carcinomas, and to investigate patient movement during therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were positioned both with a conventional laser system and with the ExacTrac system. Positioning accuracy was evaluated using repeated electronic portal images. Average displacements and overall, systematic, and random errors were calculated and compared for the two positioning methods. Further, inter- and intrafractional patient movement including time trends in positioning displacements, respiratory amplitudes, and breathing frequencies were analyzed by online documentation of body marker movement with the ExacTrac system. RESULTS: Average displacements ranged between -3.6 and 6.7 mm for the three coordinates. Mean systematic and random errors ranged from 1.6 to 3.7 mm and 2.2 to 3.7 mm, respectively, with no significant differences between conventional and ExacTrac positioning (p > 0.07). The main breathing direction was from dorsocaudal to anterocranial in 9 of 10 patients. The mean 3D breathing amplitude in the pelvis was 2.4 mm (0.49-6.96 mm). Significant interfractional and intrafractional time trends were observed concerning breathing amplitudes and positioning displacements. CONCLUSIONS: The observed displacements did not vary significantly between the two evaluated positioning systems. The analysis of registered body marker positions revealed a wide variation in respiratory frequencies, breathing amplitudes, and patient displacements with interfractional and intrafractional time trends. Systems that allow the measurement of each patient's motion characteristics are a necessary requirement for all efforts at individually tailored radiation therapy.
Authors: Yijun Ding; Harrison H Barrett; Matthew A Kupinski; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Moyed Miften; Bernard L Jones Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Won Sup Yoon; Dae Sik Yang; Jung Ae Lee; Suk Lee; Young Je Park; Chul Yong Kim Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Evan M Thomas; Richard A Popple; Brendan M Prendergast; Grant M Clark; Michael C Dobelbower; John B Fiveash Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 2.102