S K Hui1, E Lusczek, T DeFor, K Dusenbery, S Levitt. 1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology - Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical School, 420 Delaware Street SE, Mayo Mail Code 494, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, USA. huixx019@umn.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reduction of interfraction setup uncertainty is vital for assuring the accuracy of conformal radiotherapy. We report a systematic study of setup error to assess patients' three-dimensional (3D) localization at various treatment sites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tomotherapy megavoltage CT (MVCT) images were scanned daily in 259 patients from 2005-2008. We analyzed 6,465 MVCT images to measure setup error for head and neck (H&N), chest/thorax, abdomen, prostate, legs, and total marrow irradiation (TMI). Statistical comparisons of the absolute displacements across sites and time were performed in rotation (R), lateral (x), craniocaudal (y), and vertical (z) directions. RESULTS: The global systematic errors were measured to be less than 3 mm in each direction with increasing order of errors for different sites: H&N, prostate, chest, pelvis, spine, legs, and TMI. The differences in displacements in the x, y, and z directions, and 3D average displacement between treatment sites were significant (p < 0.01). Overall improvement in patient localization with time (after 3-4 treatment fractions) was observed. Large displacement (> 5 mm) was observed in the 75(th) percentile of the patient groups for chest, pelvis, legs, and spine in the x and y direction in the second week of the treatment. CONCLUSION: MVCT imaging is essential for determining 3D setup error and to reduce uncertainty in localization at all anatomical locations. Setup error evaluation should be performed daily for all treatment regions, preferably for all treatment fractions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reduction of interfraction setup uncertainty is vital for assuring the accuracy of conformal radiotherapy. We report a systematic study of setup error to assess patients' three-dimensional (3D) localization at various treatment sites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tomotherapy megavoltage CT (MVCT) images were scanned daily in 259 patients from 2005-2008. We analyzed 6,465 MVCT images to measure setup error for head and neck (H&N), chest/thorax, abdomen, prostate, legs, and total marrow irradiation (TMI). Statistical comparisons of the absolute displacements across sites and time were performed in rotation (R), lateral (x), craniocaudal (y), and vertical (z) directions. RESULTS: The global systematic errors were measured to be less than 3 mm in each direction with increasing order of errors for different sites: H&N, prostate, chest, pelvis, spine, legs, and TMI. The differences in displacements in the x, y, and z directions, and 3D average displacement between treatment sites were significant (p < 0.01). Overall improvement in patient localization with time (after 3-4 treatment fractions) was observed. Large displacement (> 5 mm) was observed in the 75(th) percentile of the patient groups for chest, pelvis, legs, and spine in the x and y direction in the second week of the treatment. CONCLUSION: MVCT imaging is essential for determining 3D setup error and to reduce uncertainty in localization at all anatomical locations. Setup error evaluation should be performed daily for all treatment regions, preferably for all treatment fractions.
Authors: Robert Jeraj; Thomas R Mackie; John Balog; Gustavo Olivera; Dave Pearson; Jeff Kapatoes; Ken Ruchala; Paul Reckwerdt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sanford L Meeks; Joseph F Harmon; Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: T R Mackie; T Holmes; S Swerdloff; P Reckwerdt; J O Deasy; J Yang; B Paliwal; T Kinsella Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; William C Chen; David G Pfister; Dennis H Kraus; Sean L Berry; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M A Hunt; G J Kutcher; C Burman; D Fass; L Harrison; S Leibel; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1993-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Leah K Schubert; David C Westerly; Wolfgang A Tomé; Minesh P Mehta; Emilie T Soisson; Thomas R Mackie; Mark A Ritter; Deepak Khuntia; Paul M Harari; Bhudatt R Paliwal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Kriz; R-P Mueller; H Mueller; G Kuhnert; A Engert; C Kobe; U Haverkamp; H T Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.621
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
Authors: Darren Zuro; Stefano Vagge; Sara Broggi; Stefano Agostinelli; Yutaka Takahashi; Jamison Brooks; Paulina Leszcynska; An Liu; Claudio Zucchetti; Simonetta Saldi; Chunhui Han; Mauro Cattaneo; Sebastian Giebel; Marc Andre Mahe; James F Sanchez; Parham Alaei; Chiara Anna; Kathryn Dusenbery; Antonio Pierini; Guy Storme; Cynthia Aristei; Jeffrey Y C Wong; Susanta Hui Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 6.280