Literature DB >> 20056344

Cone-beam CT assessment of interfraction and intrafraction setup error of two head-and-neck cancer thermoplastic masks.

Michael Velec1, John N Waldron, Brian O'Sullivan, Andrew Bayley, Bernard Cummings, John J Kim, Jolie Ringash, Stephen L Breen, Gina A Lockwood, Laura A Dawson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare setup error in standard thermoplastic masks and skin-sparing masks (SSMs) modified with low neck cutouts for head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty head-and-neck IMRT patients were randomized to be treated in a standard mask (SM) or SSM. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, acquired daily after both initial setup and any repositioning, were used for initial and residual interfraction evaluation, respectively. Weekly, post-IMRT CBCT scans were acquired for intrafraction setup evaluation. The population random (sigma) and systematic (Sigma) errors were compared for SMs and SSMs. Skin toxicity was recorded weekly by use of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria.
RESULTS: We evaluated 762 CBCT scans in 11 patients randomized to the SM and 9 to the SSM. Initial interfraction sigma was 1.6 mm or less or 1.1 degrees or less for SM and 2.0 mm or less and 0.8 degrees for SSM. Initial interfraction Sigma was 1.0 mm or less or 1.4 degrees or less for SM and 1.1 mm or less or 0.9 degrees or less for SSM. These errors were reduced before IMRT with CBCT image guidance with no significant differences in residual interfraction or intrafraction uncertainties between SMs and SSMs. Intrafraction sigma and Sigma were less than 1 mm and less than 1 degrees for both masks. Less severe skin reactions were observed in the cutout regions of the SSM compared with non-cutout regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interfraction and intrafraction setup error is not significantly different for SSMs and conventional masks in head-and-neck radiation therapy. Mask cutouts should be considered for these patients in an effort to reduce skin toxicity. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20056344     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  29 in total

1.  Set-up errors and planning target volume margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: a clinical study of image guidance with on-line cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Francesco Dionisi; Mauro Filippo Palazzi; Francesco Bracco; Maria Grazia Brambilla; Claudia Carbonini; Diego Dario Asnaghi; Angelo Filippo Monti; Alberto Torresin
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Quantifying the dosimetric impact of organ-at-risk delineation variability in head and neck radiation therapy in the context of patient setup uncertainty.

Authors:  Eric Aliotta; Hamidreza Nourzadeh; Jeffrey Siebers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Utility of intraoral stents in external beam radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Hiroshi Doi; Masao Tanooka; Toshihisa Ishida; Kuniyasu Moridera; Kenji Ichimiya; Kazuo Tarutani; Kazuhiro Kitajima; Masayuki Fujiwara; Hiromitsu Kishimoto; Norihiko Kamikonya
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-05-08

4.  Quality of patient positioning during cerebral tomotherapy irradiation using different mask systems.

Authors:  C Leitzen; T Wilhelm-Buchstab; S Garbe; C Lütter; T Müdder; B Simon; H H Schild; H Schüller
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  Technical note: 9-month repositioning accuracy for functional response assessment in head and neck chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  M Partridge; C Powell; M Koopman; L Humbert Vidan; K Newbold
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  A comparative study between open-face and closed-face masks for head and neck cancer (HNC) in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Zaheeda Mulla; Rolina K Alwassia; Essam Mohammad Senan; Shamel Soaida; Ahmed Ahmed Mohamed Ameen Mohamed; Hussain Almerdhemah; Hafiz Asif Iqbal; Hane Mohammad Muamenah
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-03-18

7.  Human-level comparable control volume mapping with a deep unsupervised-learning model for image-guided radiation therapy.

Authors:  Xiaokun Liang; Maxime Bassenne; Dimitre H Hristov; Md Tauhidul Islam; Wei Zhao; Mengyu Jia; Zhicheng Zhang; Michael Gensheimer; Beth Beadle; Quynh Le; Lei Xing
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 4.589

8.  Evaluation of inter-fraction and intra-fraction errors during volumetric modulated arc therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Wen-Jing Yin; Ying Sun; Feng Chi; Jian-Lan Fang; Rui Guo; Xiao-Li Yu; Yan-Ping Mao; Zhen-Yu Qi; Ying Guo; Meng-Zhong Liu; Jun Ma
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 9.  Imaging in radiation oncology: a perspective.

Authors:  Laura A Dawson; Cynthia Ménard
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2010

10.  Robotic-based carbon ion therapy and patient positioning in 6 degrees of freedom: setup accuracy of two standard immobilization devices used in carbon ion therapy and IMRT.

Authors:  Alexandra D Jensen; Marcus Winter; Sabine P Kuhn; Jürgen Debus; Olaf Nairz; Marc W Münter
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.