F Stieler1, F Wenz, D Scherrer, M Bernhardt, F Lohr. 1. Department of Radiation Therapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. florian.stieler@umm.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser scanning-based patient surface positioning and surveillance may complement image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) as a nonradiation-based approach. We investigated the performance of an optical system compared to standard kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and its potential to reduce the number of daily CBCTs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the patient positioning of 153 treatment fractions in 21 patients applied to three different treatment regions. Patients were first scanned with CBCT, shifted to the optimal isocenter position, and an optical scan was performed to verify the matching in relation to CBCT. RESULTS: For the head-and-neck region, the lateral/longitudinal/vertical/rotational/roll and pitch shift was 0.9 ± 1.8 mm/-2.7 ± 3.8 mm/-0.8 ± 3.6 mm/0.0 ± 1.1°/-0.5 ± 2.1°/0.2 ± 1.6°. For the thorax, the lateral/longitudinal/vertical/roll and pitch shift was -1.2 ± 3.6 mm/0.8 ± 5.1 mm/0.8 ± 4.3 mm/0.6 ± 1.4°/0.1 ± 0.9°/0.3 ± 1.0°. For the pelvis, the respective values were -2.5 ± 4.1 mm/4.6 ± 7.3 mm/-5.1 ± 7.4 mm/0.3 ± 1.1°/-0.5 ± 1.0°/0.3 ± 2.1°. In total, the recorded disagreement was -1.0 ± 3.6 mm/1.0 ± 6.3 mm/-1.8 ± 5.9 mm/0.3 ± 1.2°/-0.3 ± 1.5°/0.2 ± 1.7°. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed good agreement between the optical scanner approach and CBCT. The optical system holds potential to ensure precise patient positioning and reduced CBCT frequency in tumor locations with fixed relation to surface structures.
BACKGROUND: Laser scanning-based patient surface positioning and surveillance may complement image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) as a nonradiation-based approach. We investigated the performance of an optical system compared to standard kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and its potential to reduce the number of daily CBCTs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the patient positioning of 153 treatment fractions in 21 patients applied to three different treatment regions. Patients were first scanned with CBCT, shifted to the optimal isocenter position, and an optical scan was performed to verify the matching in relation to CBCT. RESULTS: For the head-and-neck region, the lateral/longitudinal/vertical/rotational/roll and pitch shift was 0.9 ± 1.8 mm/-2.7 ± 3.8 mm/-0.8 ± 3.6 mm/0.0 ± 1.1°/-0.5 ± 2.1°/0.2 ± 1.6°. For the thorax, the lateral/longitudinal/vertical/roll and pitch shift was -1.2 ± 3.6 mm/0.8 ± 5.1 mm/0.8 ± 4.3 mm/0.6 ± 1.4°/0.1 ± 0.9°/0.3 ± 1.0°. For the pelvis, the respective values were -2.5 ± 4.1 mm/4.6 ± 7.3 mm/-5.1 ± 7.4 mm/0.3 ± 1.1°/-0.5 ± 1.0°/0.3 ± 2.1°. In total, the recorded disagreement was -1.0 ± 3.6 mm/1.0 ± 6.3 mm/-1.8 ± 5.9 mm/0.3 ± 1.2°/-0.3 ± 1.5°/0.2 ± 1.7°. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed good agreement between the optical scanner approach and CBCT. The optical system holds potential to ensure precise patient positioning and reduced CBCT frequency in tumor locations with fixed relation to surface structures.
Authors: Kevin I Kauweloa; Dan Ruan; Justin C Park; Ajay Sandhu; Gwe Ya Kim; Todd Pawlicki; W Tyler Watkins; Bongyong Song; William Y Song Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Torsten Moser; Gregor Habl; Matthias Uhl; Kai Schubert; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth; Christian P Karger Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Giraud; F Reboul; S Clippe; R Garcia; C Carrie; F Campana; B Dubray; J C Rosenwald; J M Cosset Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: M Linthorst; A N van Geel; E A Baartman; S B Oei; W Ghidey; G C van Rhoon; J van der Zee Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nienke A Hoffmans-Holtzer; Daan Hoffmans; Max Dahele; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Khaled Elsayad; Jan Kriz; Julia Bauch; Sergiu Scobioala; Uwe Haverkamp; Cord Sunderkötter; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: C Gaisberger; P Steininger; B Mitterlechner; S Huber; H Weichenberger; F Sedlmayer; H Deutschmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-06-07 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: Daniel Habermehl; Katrin Henkner; Swantje Ecker; Oliver Jäkel; Jürgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.724