Marko Laaksomaa1, Mika Kapanen2, Tanja Skyttä1, Seppo Peltola3, Simo Hyödynmaa3, Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen1. 1. Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital (Tays), PO Box 2000 (Teiskontie 35), FI-33521 Tampere, Finland. 2. Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital (Tays), PO Box 2000 (Teiskontie 35), FI-33521 Tampere, Finland ; Department of Medical Physics, Tampere University Hospital (Tays), PO Box 2000 (Teiskontie 35), FI-33521 Tampere, Finland. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Tampere University Hospital (Tays), PO Box 2000 (Teiskontie 35), FI-33521 Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to find an optimal setup image matching position and minimal setup margins to maximally spare the organs at risk in breast radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy of breast cancer is a routine task but has many challenges. We investigated residual position errors in whole breast radiotherapy when orthogonal setup images were matched to different bony landmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1111 orthogonal setup image pairs and tangential field images were analyzed retrospectively for 50 consecutive patients. Residual errors in the treatment field images were determined by matching the orthogonal setup images to the vertebrae, sternum, ribs and their compromises. The most important region was the chest wall as it is crucial for the dose delivered to the heart and the ipsilateral lung. Inter-observer variation in online image matching was investigated. RESULTS: The best general image matching position was the compromise of the vertebrae, ribs and sternum, while the worst position was the vertebrae alone (p ≤ 0.03). The setup margins required for the chest wall varied from 4.3 mm to 5.5 mm in the lung direction while in the superior-inferior (SI) direction the margins varied from 5.1 mm to 7.6 mm. The inter-observer variation increased the minimal margins by approximately 1 mm. The margin of the lymph node areas should be at least 4.8 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Setup margins can be reduced by proper selection of a matching position for the orthogonal setup images. To retain the minimal margins sufficient, systematic error of the chest wall should not exceed 4 mm in the tangential field image.
AIM: The aim was to find an optimal setup image matching position and minimal setup margins to maximally spare the organs at risk in breast radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy of breast cancer is a routine task but has many challenges. We investigated residual position errors in whole breast radiotherapy when orthogonal setup images were matched to different bony landmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1111 orthogonal setup image pairs and tangential field images were analyzed retrospectively for 50 consecutive patients. Residual errors in the treatment field images were determined by matching the orthogonal setup images to the vertebrae, sternum, ribs and their compromises. The most important region was the chest wall as it is crucial for the dose delivered to the heart and the ipsilateral lung. Inter-observer variation in online image matching was investigated. RESULTS: The best general image matching position was the compromise of the vertebrae, ribs and sternum, while the worst position was the vertebrae alone (p ≤ 0.03). The setup margins required for the chest wall varied from 4.3 mm to 5.5 mm in the lung direction while in the superior-inferior (SI) direction the margins varied from 5.1 mm to 7.6 mm. The inter-observer variation increased the minimal margins by approximately 1 mm. The margin of the lymph node areas should be at least 4.8 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Setup margins can be reduced by proper selection of a matching position for the orthogonal setup images. To retain the minimal margins sufficient, systematic error of the chest wall should not exceed 4 mm in the tangential field image.
Authors: Panayiotis Mavroidis; Sofie Axelsson; Simo Hyödynmaa; Juha Rajala; Maunu A Pitkänen; Bengt K Lind; Anders Brahme Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2002 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Gerben R Borst; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Suzanne den Hollander; Anja Betgen; Peter Remeijer; Aline van Giersbergen; Nicola S Russell; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Harry Bartelink; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anke van Mourik; Simon van Kranen; Suzanne den Hollander; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Marcel van Herk; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Toyosi Fatunase; Zhiheng Wang; Sua Yoo; Jessica L Hubbs; Robert G Prosnitz; Fang-Fang Yin; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marko Laaksomaa; Mika Kapanen; Mikko Haltamo; Tanja Skyttä; Seppo Peltola; Simo Hyödynmaa; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Maija Rossi; Eeva Boman; Tanja Skyttä; Mikko Haltamo; Marko Laaksomaa; Mika Kapanen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Marko Laaksomaa; Sebastian Sarudis; Maija Rossi; Turkka Lehtonen; Jani Pehkonen; Jenny Remes; Helmi Luukkanen; Tanja Skyttä; Mika Kapanen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sandra Helene Hattel; Peter Andreas Andersen; Isak Hannes Wahlstedt; Sidsel Damkjaer; Arpit Saini; Jakob Borup Thomsen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.102