PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of a six-degrees-of freedom (6D) correction using ExacTrac robotics system in patients with head-and-neck (HN) cancer receiving radiation therapy. METHODS: Local setup accuracy was analyzed for 12 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient position was imaged daily upon two different protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac (ET) images correction. Setup data from either approach were compared in terms of both residual errors after correction and punctual displacement of selected regions of interest (Mandible, C2, and C6 vertebral bodies). RESULTS: On average, both protocols achieved reasonably low residual errors after initial correction. The observed differences in shift vectors between the two protocols showed that CBCT tends to weight more C2 and C6 at the expense of the mandible, while ET tends to average more differences among the different ROIs. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT, even without 6D correction capabilities, seems preferable to ET for better consistent alignment and the capability to see soft tissues. Therefore, in our experience, CBCT represents a benchmark for positioning head and neck cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of a six-degrees-of freedom (6D) correction using ExacTrac robotics system in patients with head-and-neck (HN) cancer receiving radiation therapy. METHODS: Local setup accuracy was analyzed for 12 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient position was imaged daily upon two different protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac (ET) images correction. Setup data from either approach were compared in terms of both residual errors after correction and punctual displacement of selected regions of interest (Mandible, C2, and C6 vertebral bodies). RESULTS: On average, both protocols achieved reasonably low residual errors after initial correction. The observed differences in shift vectors between the two protocols showed that CBCT tends to weight more C2 and C6 at the expense of the mandible, while ET tends to average more differences among the different ROIs. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT, even without 6D correction capabilities, seems preferable to ET for better consistent alignment and the capability to see soft tissues. Therefore, in our experience, CBCT represents a benchmark for positioning head and neck cancerpatients.
Authors: Shane Mesko; He Wang; Samuel Tung; Congjun Wang; Dario Pasalic; Bhavana V Chapman; Amy C Moreno; Jay P Reddy; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Clifton D Fuller; William Morrison; Jack Phan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Myra F Rodrigues; Sten Veen; Jaap van Egmond; Mark van Hameren; Theodorus van Oorschot; Steven de Vet; Jan P C van Santvoort; Ruud G J Wiggenraad; Mirjam E Mast Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-07-26