Zaheeda Mulla1, Rolina K Alwassia1,2, Essam Mohammad Senan1, Shamel Soaida3, Ahmed Ahmed Mohamed Ameen Mohamed1,4, Hussain Almerdhemah1, Hafiz Asif Iqbal1, Hane Mohammad Muamenah1. 1. King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (KFSHRC) - Jeddah, Oncology Department, Radiation Oncology Section, P.O Box 40047, 21499, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 2. King Abdul Aziz University Hospital, Department of Radiology Department, P.O Box 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 3. Cairo University, Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo, P.O Box 11562, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Sohag University Hospital, Department of Clinical Oncology, Sohag, P.O Box 82524, Egypt.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the setup reproducibility in the radiation treatment of Head and Neck (HN) patients using open face head and shoulder masks (OHSM) with customized headrest (CHR) versus standard closed head and shoulder masks (CHSM) and to determine the patient's level of comfort and satisfaction for both masks. METHODS: Forty patients were prospectively randomized into two groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 was assigned with CHSMs, immobilized with a standard HR (SHR) while Group 2 was assigned with OHSMs, and immobilized with CHR. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken the first 3 days, followed by weekly CBCT (prior treatment) with results registered to the planning CT to determine translational and rotational inter-fraction shifts and to verify accuracy. Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the systematic and random setup errors of the 2 arms in the translational and rotational directions were analyzed, using Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Patient comfort was measured using a Likert questionnaire. RESULTS: The vertical, lateral, longitudinal and Z/roll rotational shifts were not significantly different between the two masks. X/yaw and Y/pitch rotational shifts were significantly greater in Group 2 versus Group 1, for both systematic (p = 0.009 and 0.046, respectively) and random settings (p = 0.016 and 0.020) but still within three degrees. Patients reported higher neck and shoulder comfort (p = 0.020) and overall satisfaction (p = 0.026) using the OHSM with the CHR versus the CHSM with the SHR during CT simulation. CONCLUSION: Open masks provide comparable yet comfortable immobilization to closed masks for HN radiotherapy.
AIM: To determine the setup reproducibility in the radiation treatment of Head and Neck (HN) patients using open face head and shoulder masks (OHSM) with customized headrest (CHR) versus standard closed head and shoulder masks (CHSM) and to determine the patient's level of comfort and satisfaction for both masks. METHODS: Forty patients were prospectively randomized into two groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 was assigned with CHSMs, immobilized with a standard HR (SHR) while Group 2 was assigned with OHSMs, and immobilized with CHR. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken the first 3 days, followed by weekly CBCT (prior treatment) with results registered to the planning CT to determine translational and rotational inter-fraction shifts and to verify accuracy. Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the systematic and random setup errors of the 2 arms in the translational and rotational directions were analyzed, using Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Patient comfort was measured using a Likert questionnaire. RESULTS: The vertical, lateral, longitudinal and Z/roll rotational shifts were not significantly different between the two masks. X/yaw and Y/pitch rotational shifts were significantly greater in Group 2 versus Group 1, for both systematic (p = 0.009 and 0.046, respectively) and random settings (p = 0.016 and 0.020) but still within three degrees. Patients reported higher neck and shoulder comfort (p = 0.020) and overall satisfaction (p = 0.026) using the OHSM with the CHR versus the CHSM with the SHR during CT simulation. CONCLUSION: Open masks provide comparable yet comfortable immobilization to closed masks for HN radiotherapy.
Authors: Michael Velec; John N Waldron; Brian O'Sullivan; Andrew Bayley; Bernard Cummings; John J Kim; Jolie Ringash; Stephen L Breen; Gina A Lockwood; Laura A Dawson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Guang Li; D Michael Lovelock; James Mechalakos; Shyam Rao; Cesar Della-Biancia; Howard Amols; Nancy Lee Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Daniel Reitz; Johannes Muecke; Vanessa da Silva Mendes; Guillaume Landry; Michael Reiner; Maximilian Niyazi; Claus Belka; Philipp Freislederer; Stefanie Corradini Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-25