Literature DB >> 24322995

Quality of patient positioning during cerebral tomotherapy irradiation using different mask systems.

C Leitzen1, T Wilhelm-Buchstab, S Garbe, C Lütter, T Müdder, B Simon, H H Schild, H Schüller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Patient immobilization during brain tumor radiotherapy is achieved by employing different mask systems. Two innovative mask systems were developed to minimize the problems of claustrophobic patients. Our aim was to evaluate whether the quality of patient immobilization using the new mask systems was equivalent to the standard mask system currently in use.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients with cerebral target volumes were irradiated using the Hi-Art II tomotherapy system between 2010 and 2012. Each group of 11 patients was fitted with one of the two new mask systems (Crystal® or Open Face® mask, Orfit) or the standard three-point mask (Raycast®-HP, Orfit) and a total of 557 radiotherapy fractions were evaluated. After positioning was checked by MV-CT, the necessary table adjustments were noted. Data were analyzed by comparing the groups, and safety margins were calculated for nonimage-guided irradiation.
RESULTS: The mean values of the table adjustments were: (a) lateral (mm): - 0.22 (mask 1, standard deviation (σ): 2.15); 1.1 (mask 2, σ: 2.4); - 0.64 (mask 3, σ: 2.9); (b) longitudinal (mm): - 1 (mask 1, σ: 2.57); - 0.5 (mask 2, σ: 4.7); - 1.22 (mask 3, σ: 2.52); (c) vertical (mm): 0.62 (mask 1, σ: 0.63); 1.2 (mask 2, σ: 1.0); 0.57 (mask 3, σ: 0.28); (d) roll: 0.35° (mask 1, σ: 0.75); 0° (mask 2, σ: 0.8); 0.02° (mask 3, σ: 1.12). The outcomes suggest necessary safety margins of 5.49-7.38 mm (lateral), 5.4-6.56 mm (longitudinal), 0.82-3.9 mm (vertical), and 1.93-4.5° (roll). There were no significant differences between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The new mask systems improve patient comfort while providing consistent patient positioning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24322995     DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0496-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol        ISSN: 0179-7158            Impact factor:   3.621


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of the planning target volume in the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: what is the appropriate expansion margin in the setting of daily image guidance?

Authors:  Allen M Chen; D Gregory Farwell; Quang Luu; Paul J Donald; Julian Perks; James A Purdy
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Three-dimensional patient setup errors at different treatment sites measured by the Tomotherapy megavoltage CT.

Authors:  S K Hui; E Lusczek; T DeFor; K Dusenbery; S Levitt
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Inter- and intrafraction patient positioning uncertainties for intracranial radiotherapy: a study of four frameless, thermoplastic mask-based immobilization strategies using daily cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Erik Tryggestad; Matthew Christian; Eric Ford; Carmen Kut; Yi Le; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Danny Y Song; Lawrence Kleinberg
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Randomized trial on two types of thermoplastic masks for patient immobilization during radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer.

Authors:  Lena Sharp; Freddi Lewin; Hemming Johansson; David Payne; Ansi Gerhardsson; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Comparison of repositioning accuracy of two commercially available immobilization systems for treatment of head-and-neck tumors using simulation computed tomography imaging.

Authors:  Ronny L Rotondo; Khalil Sultanem; Isabelle Lavoie; Julie Skelly; Luc Raymond
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  An immobilization system for claustrophobic patients in head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Siyong Kim; Hilary C Akpati; Jonathan G Li; Chihray R Liu; Robert J Amdur; Jatinder R Palta
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Repositioning accuracy of a commercially available thermoplastic mask system.

Authors:  Martin Fuss; Bill J Salter; Dennis Cheek; Amir Sadeghi; James M Hevezi; Terence S Herman
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Helical tomotherapy. Experiences of the first 150 patients in Heidelberg.

Authors:  Florian Sterzing; Kai Schubert; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Jörn Kalz; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.621

9.  Clinical evaluation of a commercial surface-imaging system for patient positioning in radiotherapy.

Authors:  F Stieler; F Wenz; D Scherrer; M Bernhardt; F Lohr
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Robotic-based carbon ion therapy and patient positioning in 6 degrees of freedom: setup accuracy of two standard immobilization devices used in carbon ion therapy and IMRT.

Authors:  Alexandra D Jensen; Marcus Winter; Sabine P Kuhn; Jürgen Debus; Olaf Nairz; Marc W Münter
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  1 in total

1.  3D-Printed masks as a new approach for immobilization in radiotherapy - a study of positioning accuracy.

Authors:  Matthias Felix Haefner; Frederik Lars Giesel; Matthias Mattke; Daniel Rath; Moritz Wade; Jacob Kuypers; Alan Preuss; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jens-Peter Schenk; Juergen Debus; Florian Sterzing; Roland Unterhinninghofen
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-01-08
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.