PURPOSE: To evaluate an institute-specific CTV-PTV margin for head and neck (HN) patients according to a 3-mm action level protocol. METHODS/PATIENTS: Twenty-three HN patients were prospectively analysed. Patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask. Inter- and intrafractional set-up errors (in the three dimensions) were assessed from portal images (PI) registration. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were compared with two orthogonal PI by matching bone anatomy landmarks. The isocenter was verified during the first five consecutive days of treatment: if the mean error detected was greater than 2 mm the isocenter position was corrected for the rest of the treatment. Isocenter was checked weekly thereafter. Set-up images were obtained before and after treatment administration on 10, 20 and 30 fractions to quantify the intrafractional displacement. For the set-up errors, systematic (Σ), random (σ), overall standard deviations, and the overall mean displacement (M), were determined. CTV to PTV margin was calculated considering both inter- and intrafractional errors. RESULTS: A total of 396 portal images was analysed in 23 patients. Systematic interfractional (Σ(inter)) set-up errors ranged between 0.77 and 1.42 mm in the three directions, whereas the random (σ (inter)) errors were around 1-1.31 mm. Systematic intrafractional (Σ(intra)) errors ranged between 0.65 and 1.11 mm, whereas the random (σ (intra)) errors were around 1.13-1.16 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A verification protocol (3-mm action level) provided by EPIDs improves the set-up accuracy. Intrafractional error is not negligible and contributes to create a larger CTV-PTV margin. The appropriate CTV-PTV margin for our institute is between 3 and 4.5 mm considering both inter- and intrafractional errors.
PURPOSE: To evaluate an institute-specific CTV-PTV margin for head and neck (HN) patients according to a 3-mm action level protocol. METHODS/PATIENTS: Twenty-three HN patients were prospectively analysed. Patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask. Inter- and intrafractional set-up errors (in the three dimensions) were assessed from portal images (PI) registration. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were compared with two orthogonal PI by matching bone anatomy landmarks. The isocenter was verified during the first five consecutive days of treatment: if the mean error detected was greater than 2 mm the isocenter position was corrected for the rest of the treatment. Isocenter was checked weekly thereafter. Set-up images were obtained before and after treatment administration on 10, 20 and 30 fractions to quantify the intrafractional displacement. For the set-up errors, systematic (Σ), random (σ), overall standard deviations, and the overall mean displacement (M), were determined. CTV to PTV margin was calculated considering both inter- and intrafractional errors. RESULTS: A total of 396 portal images was analysed in 23 patients. Systematic interfractional (Σ(inter)) set-up errors ranged between 0.77 and 1.42 mm in the three directions, whereas the random (σ (inter)) errors were around 1-1.31 mm. Systematic intrafractional (Σ(intra)) errors ranged between 0.65 and 1.11 mm, whereas the random (σ (intra)) errors were around 1.13-1.16 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A verification protocol (3-mm action level) provided by EPIDs improves the set-up accuracy. Intrafractional error is not negligible and contributes to create a larger CTV-PTV margin. The appropriate CTV-PTV margin for our institute is between 3 and 4.5 mm considering both inter- and intrafractional errors.
Authors: John R Van Sörnsen de Koste; Hans C J de Boer; Regine H Schuchhard-Schipper; Suresh Senan; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Louis Potters; Laurie E Gaspar; Brian Kavanagh; James M Galvin; Alan C Hartford; James M Hevezi; Patrick A Kupelian; Najeeb Mohiden; Michael A Samuels; Robert Timmerman; Prabhakar Tripuraneni; Maria T Vlachaki; Lei Xing; Seth A Rosenthal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mischa S Hoogeman; Joost J Nuyttens; Peter C Levendag; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bram van Asselen; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Chris H J Terhaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Heng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong; Sam Tung; Anesa Ahamad; K S Clifford Chao; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; David L Schwartz; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Mazzola; F Ricchetti; A Fiorentino; G Di Paola; S Fersino; N Giaj Levra; R Ruggieri; F Alongi Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: M Mattke; D Rath; M F Häfner; R Unterhinninghofen; F Sterzing; J Debus; F L Giesel Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Dualta McQuaid; Alex Dunlop; Kee H Wong; Liam C Welsh; Angela M Riddell; Dow-Mu Koh; Uwe Oelfke; Martin O Leach; Christopher M Nutting; Shreerang A Bhide; Kevin J Harrington; Rafal Panek; Kate L Newbold Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 7.038
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