AIM: To identify the most reproducible technique of patient positioning and immobilization during pelvic radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. Errors in positioning of patient are an integral component of treatment. The present study compares two methods of immobilization with no immobilization with an aim of identifying the most reproducible method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 65 consecutive patients receiving pelvic external beam radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. 30, 21 and 14 patients were treated with no-immobilization with a leg separator, whole body vacuum bag cushion (VBC) and six point aquaplast immobilization system, respectively. The systematic error, random error and the planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated for all the three techniques and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The systematic errors were the highest in the VBC and random errors were the highest in the aquaplast group. Both systematic and random errors were the lowest in patients treated with no-immobilization. 3D Systematic error (mm, mean ± 1SD) was 4.31 ± 3.84, 3.39 ± 1.71 and 2.42 ± 0.97 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. 3D random error (mm, 1SD) was 2.96, 3.59 and 1.39 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. The differences were statistically significant between all the three groups. The calculated PTV margins were the smallest for the no-immobilization technique with 4.56, 4.69 and 4.59 mm, respectively, in x, y and z axes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among the three techniques, no-immobilization technique with leg separator was the most reproducible technique with the smallest PTV margins. For obvious reasons, this technique is the least time consuming and most economically viable in developing countries.
AIM: To identify the most reproducible technique of patient positioning and immobilization during pelvic radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. Errors in positioning of patient are an integral component of treatment. The present study compares two methods of immobilization with no immobilization with an aim of identifying the most reproducible method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 65 consecutive patients receiving pelvic external beam radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. 30, 21 and 14 patients were treated with no-immobilization with a leg separator, whole body vacuum bag cushion (VBC) and six point aquaplast immobilization system, respectively. The systematic error, random error and the planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated for all the three techniques and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The systematic errors were the highest in the VBC and random errors were the highest in the aquaplast group. Both systematic and random errors were the lowest in patients treated with no-immobilization. 3D Systematic error (mm, mean ± 1SD) was 4.31 ± 3.84, 3.39 ± 1.71 and 2.42 ± 0.97 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. 3D random error (mm, 1SD) was 2.96, 3.59 and 1.39 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. The differences were statistically significant between all the three groups. The calculated PTV margins were the smallest for the no-immobilization technique with 4.56, 4.69 and 4.59 mm, respectively, in x, y and z axes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among the three techniques, no-immobilization technique with leg separator was the most reproducible technique with the smallest PTV margins. For obvious reasons, this technique is the least time consuming and most economically viable in developing countries.
Entities:
Keywords:
3DCRT, three dimensional conformal radiotherapy; Aquaplast; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CTV, clinical target volume; EPID, electronic portal imaging device; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; Immobilization; No-immobilization; PTV, planning target volume; Pelvic radiotherapy; SD, standard deviation; Setup errors; TE, total error; VBC, vacuum bag cushion; Vacuum bag cushion
Authors: C Catton; L Lebar; P Warde; Y Hao; P Catton; M Gospodarowicz; M McLean; M Milosevic Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: P Y Song; M Washington; F Vaida; R Hamilton; D Spelbring; B Wyman; J Harrison; G T Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038