Literature DB >> 24128423

Image guidance protocols: balancing imaging parameters against scan time.

A M Bates1, J E Scaife, G S J Tudor, R Jena, M Romanchikova, J C Dean, A C F Hoole, M P D Simmons, N G Burnet.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Optimisation of imaging protocols is essential to maximise the use of image-guided radiotherapy. This article evaluates the time for daily online imaging with TomoTherapy® (Accuray®, Sunnyvale, CA), separating mechanical scan acquisition from radiographer-led image matching, to estimate the time required for a clinical research study (VoxTox).
METHODS: Over 5 years, 18 533 treatments were recorded for 3 tumour sites of interest (prostate, head and neck and central nervous system). Data were collected for scan length, number of CT slices, slice thickness, scan acquisition time and image matching time.
RESULTS: The proportion of coarse thickness scans increased over time, with a move of making coarse scans as the default. There was a strong correlation between scan time and scan length. Scan acquisition requires 40 s of processing time. For coarse scans, each additional centimetre requires 8 s for acquisition. Image matching takes approximately 1.5 times as long, so each additional centimetre needs 20 s extra in total. Modest changes to the imaging protocol have minimal impact over the course of the day.
CONCLUSION: This work quantified the effect of changes to clinical protocols required for research. The results have been found to be reassuring in the busy National Institutes of Health department. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This novel method of data collection and analysis provides evidence of the minimal impact of research on clinical turnover. Whilst the data relate specifically to TomoTherapy, some aspects may apply to other platforms in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24128423      PMCID: PMC3854571          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20130385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  22 in total

1.  Rate limiting factors in recruitment of patients to clinical trials in cancer research: descriptive study.

Authors:  Pippa Corrie; Justin Shaw; Roy Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-09

2.  The implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the UK.

Authors:  M V Williams; T Cooper; R Mackay; J Staffurth; D Routsis; N Burnet
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 4.126

3.  Optimization of megavoltage CT scan registration settings for brain cancer treatments on tomotherapy.

Authors:  Curtis Woodford; Slav Yartsev; Jake Van Dyk
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy.

Authors:  Ellen Donovan; Natalie Bleakley; Erica Denholm; Phil Evans; Lone Gothard; Jane Hanson; Clare Peckitt; Stephanie Reise; Gill Ross; Grace Sharp; Richard Symonds-Tayler; Diana Tait; John Yarnold
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  IGRT with helical tomotherapy--effort and benefit in clinical routine.

Authors:  Florian Sterzing; Klaus Herfarth; Juergen Debus
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 6.  Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies.

Authors:  Liv Veldeman; Indira Madani; Frank Hulstaert; Gert De Meerleer; Marc Mareel; Wilfried De Neve
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  IMRT can be faster to deliver than conformal radiotherapy.

Authors:  Michael V Williams; Andrew C F Hoole; June C Dean; Simon G Russell; Simon J Thomas; Jamie Fairfoul; Neil G Burnet
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Implementation of image-guided radiotherapy.

Authors:  K N Franks; H A McNair
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 4.126

9.  Progress with Intensity-modulated radiotherapy implementation in the UK.

Authors:  W P M Mayles; T Cooper; R Mackay; J Staffurth; M Williams
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 4.126

10.  Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christopher M Nutting; James P Morden; Kevin J Harrington; Teresa Guerrero Urbano; Shreerang A Bhide; Catharine Clark; Elizabeth A Miles; Aisha B Miah; Kate Newbold; MaryAnne Tanay; Fawzi Adab; Sarah J Jefferies; Christopher Scrase; Beng K Yap; Roger P A'Hern; Mark A Sydenham; Marie Emson; Emma Hall
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  2 in total

1.  Random variation in rectal position during radiotherapy for prostate cancer is two to three times greater than that predicted from prostate motion.

Authors:  J Scaife; K Harrison; M Romanchikova; A Parker; M Sutcliffe; S Bond; S Thomas; S Freeman; R Jena; A Bates; N Burnet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Autosegmentation of the rectum on megavoltage image guidance scans.

Authors:  L E A Shelley; M P F Sutcliffe; K Harrison; J E Scaife; M A Parker; M Romanchikova; S J Thomas; R Jena; N G Burnet
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2019-01-10
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.