Marko Laaksomaa1, Torsten Moser2, Julia Kritz1, Kiira Pynnönen1, Maija Rossi1,3. 1. Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 2. VisionRT LTD, London, Great Britain. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Setup accuracy within adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer treated in free breathing is well studied, but a comparison of the typical regions of interest (ROI) used in surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) does not exist. The aim of this study was to estimate the setup accuracy obtained with differently shaped ROIs in SGRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 573 orthogonal image pairs were analyzed from free breathing breast patients in two groups: positioning using AlignRT® surface guidance system (Group A, n = 20), and setup using conventional laser and tattoo setup (Group L, n = 20). For SGRT, three different setup ROIs were used: a Breast-shaped, O-shaped and T-shaped (B-O and T-ROI). We evaluated the isocenter-, rotation-, pitch and arm position accuracy and residual errors for the chest wall and shoulder joint in kV orthogonal and tangential setup images with laser- or SGRT-based setup. RESULTS: Less isocenter variance was found in Group A than in Group L. Rotations and posture errors were larger in group L than in Group A (p ≤ 0.05). Rotation error was smaller with T-shaped ROI than with O- or B-shape (p = 0.01-0.04). CONCLUSION: Setup with AlignRT® improves reproducibility compared to laser setup. Between the different ROI shapes only small differences were found in the patient posture or the isocenter position in the images. The T-ROI is recommended to set up the chest wall bony structure and an additional B-ROI may be used to fine-tune the soft tissue accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Setup accuracy within adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer treated in free breathing is well studied, but a comparison of the typical regions of interest (ROI) used in surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) does not exist. The aim of this study was to estimate the setup accuracy obtained with differently shaped ROIs in SGRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 573 orthogonal image pairs were analyzed from free breathing breast patients in two groups: positioning using AlignRT® surface guidance system (Group A, n = 20), and setup using conventional laser and tattoo setup (Group L, n = 20). For SGRT, three different setup ROIs were used: a Breast-shaped, O-shaped and T-shaped (B-O and T-ROI). We evaluated the isocenter-, rotation-, pitch and arm position accuracy and residual errors for the chest wall and shoulder joint in kV orthogonal and tangential setup images with laser- or SGRT-based setup. RESULTS: Less isocenter variance was found in Group A than in Group L. Rotations and posture errors were larger in group L than in Group A (p ≤ 0.05). Rotation error was smaller with T-shaped ROI than with O- or B-shape (p = 0.01-0.04). CONCLUSION: Setup with AlignRT® improves reproducibility compared to laser setup. Between the different ROI shapes only small differences were found in the patient posture or the isocenter position in the images. The T-ROI is recommended to set up the chest wall bony structure and an additional B-ROI may be used to fine-tune the soft tissue accuracy.
Authors: Mika Kapanen; Marko Laaksomaa; Tanja Skyttä; Mikko Haltamo; Jani Pehkonen; Turkka Lehtonen; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; Simo Hyödynmaa Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Marko Laaksomaa; Mika Kapanen; Tanja Skyttä; Seppo Peltola; Simo Hyödynmaa; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2014-07-15
Authors: Tanja Skyttä; Mika Kapanen; Marko Laaksomaa; Seppo Peltola; Mikko Haltamo; Eeva Boman; Simo Hyödynmaa; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ryan P Smith; Peter Bloch; Eleanor E Harris; James McDonough; Abhirup Sarkar; Alireza Kassaee; Steven Avery; Lawrence J Solin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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