Anke van der Salm1, Lars Murrer2, Inge Steenbakkers2, Ruud Houben2, Liesbeth J Boersma2. 1. Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: Anke.vandersalm@maastro.nl. 2. Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: After changing from offline setup verification to online setup verification using external skin markers in breast cancer patients, we noticed an increase in localized acute skin toxicity beneath the markers. Also, in vivo 3-dimensional dose measurements showed deviations between the delivered and the planned dose distributions; therefore, we investigated the accuracy of setup verification using surgical clips in the tumor bed, with a focus on target coverage of whole breast and tumor bed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Orthogonal kilovoltage images were acquired before every fraction in 35 breast cancer patients, deriving an online 3-dimensional setup error by matching on external skin markers. In retrospect, a rematch was performed using surgical clips. For 155 fractions (ie, 5-6 fractions/patient), a cone beam computed tomography (CT) scan was available. Analysis concerned: (1) visibility of the clips, (2) migration of the clips, (3) comparison of setup errors according to both match methods, and (4) comparison of target coverage by recalculating the dose on the online setup-corrected cone beam CT scan with the patient setup according to both match methods. External validation of the surgical clip-based online setup verification was performed in 23 patients by analyzing kilovoltage images of 100 fractions, obtained after treatment. RESULTS: All types of surgical clips could be visualized. The clip to center-of-mass distance decreased on average by 2 mm (standard deviation, 1) over the course of treatment. Setup differences between match methods were on average <0.5 mm in all directions. The reconstructed dose distributions showed standard deviations of volumes receiving 95% or 107% of prescribed dose and mean dose of the breast and boost planning target volume were similar for the planning CT and the cone beam CTs, for both match procedures. An external validation in 23 patients showed reassuring setup errors <2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Online setup verification using surgical clips results in comparable setup corrections and target volume coverage as verification using skin markers. By omitting skin markers acute skin toxicity beneath the markers is prevented.
PURPOSE: After changing from offline setup verification to online setup verification using external skin markers in breast cancerpatients, we noticed an increase in localized acute skin toxicity beneath the markers. Also, in vivo 3-dimensional dose measurements showed deviations between the delivered and the planned dose distributions; therefore, we investigated the accuracy of setup verification using surgical clips in the tumor bed, with a focus on target coverage of whole breast and tumor bed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Orthogonal kilovoltage images were acquired before every fraction in 35 breast cancerpatients, deriving an online 3-dimensional setup error by matching on external skin markers. In retrospect, a rematch was performed using surgical clips. For 155 fractions (ie, 5-6 fractions/patient), a cone beam computed tomography (CT) scan was available. Analysis concerned: (1) visibility of the clips, (2) migration of the clips, (3) comparison of setup errors according to both match methods, and (4) comparison of target coverage by recalculating the dose on the online setup-corrected cone beam CT scan with the patient setup according to both match methods. External validation of the surgical clip-based online setup verification was performed in 23 patients by analyzing kilovoltage images of 100 fractions, obtained after treatment. RESULTS: All types of surgical clips could be visualized. The clip to center-of-mass distance decreased on average by 2 mm (standard deviation, 1) over the course of treatment. Setup differences between match methods were on average <0.5 mm in all directions. The reconstructed dose distributions showed standard deviations of volumes receiving 95% or 107% of prescribed dose and mean dose of the breast and boost planning target volume were similar for the planning CT and the cone beam CTs, for both match procedures. An external validation in 23 patients showed reassuring setup errors <2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Online setup verification using surgical clips results in comparable setup corrections and target volume coverage as verification using skin markers. By omitting skin markers acute skin toxicity beneath the markers is prevented.
Authors: Tanja Alderliesten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Anja Betgen; Rajko Topolnjak; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij; Peter Remeijer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-31
Authors: Sunny Mitchell; Henry Lee; Beth Baughman DuPree; David C Beyer; Michael Ulissey; Stephen R Grobmyer; Jennifer Gass; Susan Boolbol; Toni Storm-Dickerson Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2019-12