PURPOSE: An analysis is performed of the setup errors measured by a kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patients immobilized by a thermoplastic mask and a bite-block and positioned using stereotactic coordinates. We evaluated the overall positioning precision and accuracy of the immobilizing and localizing systems. The potential of image-guided radiotherapy to replace stereotactic methods is discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-seven patients received brain SRT. After a frame-guided setup, before each fraction (131 fractions), a CBCT was acquired and the detected displacements corrected online. Translational and rotational errors were analyzed calculating overall mean and standard deviation. A separate analysis was performed for bite-block (in conjunction with mask) and for simple thermoplastic mask. Interobserver variability for CBCT three-dimensional registration was assessed. The residual error after correction and intrafractional motion were calculated. RESULTS: The mean module of the three-dimensional displacement vector was 3.0 +/- 1.4 mm. Setup errors for bite block and mask were smaller (2.9 +/- 1.3 mm) than those for thermoplastic mask alone (3.2 +/- 1.5 mm), but statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.15). Interobserver variability was negligible. The maximum margin calculated for residual errors and intra fraction motion was small but not negligible (1.57 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the detected setup errors, daily image guidance is essential for the efficacy of SRT treatments when mask immobilization is used, and even when a bite-block is used in conjunction. The frame setup is still used as a starting point for the opportunity of rotational corrections. Residual margins after on-line corrections must be evaluated.
PURPOSE: An analysis is performed of the setup errors measured by a kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patients immobilized by a thermoplastic mask and a bite-block and positioned using stereotactic coordinates. We evaluated the overall positioning precision and accuracy of the immobilizing and localizing systems. The potential of image-guided radiotherapy to replace stereotactic methods is discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-seven patients received brain SRT. After a frame-guided setup, before each fraction (131 fractions), a CBCT was acquired and the detected displacements corrected online. Translational and rotational errors were analyzed calculating overall mean and standard deviation. A separate analysis was performed for bite-block (in conjunction with mask) and for simple thermoplastic mask. Interobserver variability for CBCT three-dimensional registration was assessed. The residual error after correction and intrafractional motion were calculated. RESULTS: The mean module of the three-dimensional displacement vector was 3.0 +/- 1.4 mm. Setup errors for bite block and mask were smaller (2.9 +/- 1.3 mm) than those for thermoplastic mask alone (3.2 +/- 1.5 mm), but statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.15). Interobserver variability was negligible. The maximum margin calculated for residual errors and intra fraction motion was small but not negligible (1.57 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the detected setup errors, daily image guidance is essential for the efficacy of SRT treatments when mask immobilization is used, and even when a bite-block is used in conjunction. The frame setup is still used as a starting point for the opportunity of rotational corrections. Residual margins after on-line corrections must be evaluated.
Authors: Morten Nielsen; Christian R Hansen; Carsten Brink; Anders S Bertelsen; Charlotte Kristiansen; Jeppesen Stefan S; Olfred Hansen Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2016
Authors: A Theelen; J Martens; G Bosmans; R Houben; J J Jager; I Rutten; P Lambin; A W Minken; B G Baumert Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Bruno De Potter; Gert De Meerleer; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Boterberg; Bruno Speleers; Piet Ost Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Jürgen Wilbert; Matthias Guckenberger; Bülent Polat; Otto Sauer; Michael Vogele; Michael Flentje; Reinhart A Sweeney Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Eric Oermann; Brian T Collins; Kelly T Erickson; Xia Yu; Sue Lei; Simeng Suy; Heather N Hanscom; Joy Kim; Hyeon U Park; Andrew Eldabh; Christopher Kalhorn; Kevin McGrail; Deepa Subramaniam; Walter C Jean; Sean P Collins Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Matthias Guckenberger; Johannes Roesch; Kurt Baier; Reinhart A Sweeney; Michael Flentje Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.481