PURPOSE: The goal was to provide a quantitative evaluation of the accuracy of three different fixation systems for stereotactic radiotherapy and to evaluate patients' acceptance for all fixations. METHODS: A total of 16 consecutive patients with brain tumours undergoingfractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SCRT) were enrolled after informed consent (Clinical trials.gov: NCT00181350). Fixation systems evaluated were the BrainLAB® mask, with and without custom made bite-block (fixations S and A) and a homemade neck support with bite-block (fixation B) based on the BrainLAB® frame. The sequence of measurements was evaluated in a randomized manner with a cross-over design and patients' acceptance by a questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean three-dimensional (3D) displacement and standard deviations were 1.16 ± 0.68 mm for fixation S, 1.92 ± 1.28 and 1.70 ± 0.83 mm for fixations A and B, respectively. There was a significant improvement of the overall alignment (3D vector) when using the standard fixation instead of fixation A or B in the craniocaudal direction (p = 0.037). Rotational deviations were significantly less for the standard fixation S in relation to fixations A (p = 0.005) and B (p = 0.03). EPI imaging with off-line correction further improved reproducibility. Five out of 8 patients preferred the neck support with the bite-block. CONCLUSION: The mask fixation system in conjunction with a bite-block is the most accurate fixation for SCRT reducing craniocaudal and rotational movements. Patients favoured the more comfortable but less accurate neck support. To optimize the accuracy of SCRT, additional regular portal imaging is warranted.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The goal was to provide a quantitative evaluation of the accuracy of three different fixation systems for stereotactic radiotherapy and to evaluate patients' acceptance for all fixations. METHODS: A total of 16 consecutive patients with brain tumours undergoing fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SCRT) were enrolled after informed consent (Clinical trials.gov: NCT00181350). Fixation systems evaluated were the BrainLAB® mask, with and without custom made bite-block (fixations S and A) and a homemade neck support with bite-block (fixation B) based on the BrainLAB® frame. The sequence of measurements was evaluated in a randomized manner with a cross-over design and patients' acceptance by a questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean three-dimensional (3D) displacement and standard deviations were 1.16 ± 0.68 mm for fixation S, 1.92 ± 1.28 and 1.70 ± 0.83 mm for fixations A and B, respectively. There was a significant improvement of the overall alignment (3D vector) when using the standard fixation instead of fixation A or B in the craniocaudal direction (p = 0.037). Rotational deviations were significantly less for the standard fixation S in relation to fixations A (p = 0.005) and B (p = 0.03). EPI imaging with off-line correction further improved reproducibility. Five out of 8 patients preferred the neck support with the bite-block. CONCLUSION: The mask fixation system in conjunction with a bite-block is the most accurate fixation for SCRT reducing craniocaudal and rotational movements. Patients favoured the more comfortable but less accurate neck support. To optimize the accuracy of SCRT, additional regular portal imaging is warranted.
Authors: B J Salter; M Fuss; D G Vollmer; A Sadeghi; C A Bogaev; D A Cheek; T S Herman; J M Hevezi Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shaleen Kumar; Kevin Burke; Colin Nalder; Paula Jarrett; Cephas Mubata; Roger A'hern; Mandy Humphreys; Margaret Bidmead; Michael Brada Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: R Wiggenraad; A Verbeek-de Kanter; M Mast; R Molenaar; H B Kal; G Lycklama à Nijeholt; C Vecht; H Struikmans Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: I Compter; K Zaugg; R M A Houben; J T A Dings; G Bosmans; C Buescher; M M H M E Anten; B G Baumert Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-09-09 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: Dante Amelio; Marcus Winter; Daniel Habermehl; Oliver Jäkel; Jurgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Steven Babic; Young Lee; Mark Ruschin; Fiona Lochray; Alex Lightstone; Eshetu Atenafu; Nic Phan; Todd Mainprize; May Tsao; Hany Soliman; Arjun Sahgal Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 2.102