AIM: In this study, we intend to compare two different setup procedures for female breast cancer patients. BACKGROUND: Imaging in radiotherapy provides a precise localization of the tumour, increasing the accuracy of the treatment delivery in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty breast cancer patients who underwent whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) were selected for this study. Patients were divided into two groups of ten. Group one (G1) was positioned by tattoos and then the patient positioning was adjusted with the aid of AlignRT (Vision RT, London, UK). In group two (G2), patients were positioned only by tattoos. For both groups, the first 15 fractions were analyzed, a daily kilovoltage (kV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image was made and then the rotational and translational displacements and, posteriorly, the systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were analyzed. RESULTS: The comparison of CBCT displacements for the two groups showed a statistically significant difference in the translational left-right (LR) direction (ρ = 0.03), considering that the procedure with AlignRT system has smaller lateral displacements. The results of systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors showed that for translational displacements the group positioned only by tattoos (G2) demonstrated higher values of errors when compared with the group positioned with the aid of AlignRT (G1). CONCLUSIONS: AlignRT could help the positioning of breast cancer patients; however, it should be used with another imaging method.
AIM: In this study, we intend to compare two different setup procedures for female breast cancer patients. BACKGROUND: Imaging in radiotherapy provides a precise localization of the tumour, increasing the accuracy of the treatment delivery in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty breast cancer patients who underwent whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) were selected for this study. Patients were divided into two groups of ten. Group one (G1) was positioned by tattoos and then the patient positioning was adjusted with the aid of AlignRT (Vision RT, London, UK). In group two (G2), patients were positioned only by tattoos. For both groups, the first 15 fractions were analyzed, a daily kilovoltage (kV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image was made and then the rotational and translational displacements and, posteriorly, the systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were analyzed. RESULTS: The comparison of CBCT displacements for the two groups showed a statistically significant difference in the translational left-right (LR) direction (ρ = 0.03), considering that the procedure with AlignRT system has smaller lateral displacements. The results of systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors showed that for translational displacements the group positioned only by tattoos (G2) demonstrated higher values of errors when compared with the group positioned with the aid of AlignRT (G1). CONCLUSIONS: AlignRT could help the positioning of breast cancer patients; however, it should be used with another imaging method.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D surface imaging; AlignRT; Breast cancer; Cone beam computed tomography; Whole breast radiotherapy
Authors: Christoph Bert; Katherine G Metheany; Karen P Doppke; Alphonse G Taghian; Simon N Powell; George T Y Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C Gaisberger; P Steininger; B Mitterlechner; S Huber; H Weichenberger; F Sedlmayer; H Deutschmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: A De Puysseleyr; T Mulliez; A Gulyban; E Bogaert; T Vercauteren; T Van Hoof; J Van de Velde; R Van Den Broecke; C De Wagter; W De Neve Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Philipp J Schöffel; Wolfgang Harms; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Wolfgang Schlegel; Christian P Karger Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Julian Jacob; Steve Heymann; Isabelle Borget; Isabelle Dumas; Elyes Riahi; Pierre Maroun; Patrick Ezra; Elena Roberti; Sofia Rivera; Eric Deutsch; Céline Bourgier Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: A Gnerucci; M Esposito; A Ghirelli; S Pini; L Paoletti; R Barca; S Fondelli; P Alpi; B Grilli; F Rossi; S Scoccianti; S Russo Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.033
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
Authors: Pieter Deseyne; Bruno Speleers; Wilfried De Neve; Bert Boute; Leen Paelinck; Vincent Vakaet; Hans Van Hulle; Max Schoepen; Michael Stouthandel; Annick Van Greveling; Giselle Post; Jan Detand; Chris Monten; Herman Depypere; Liv Veldeman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.379