Lucy Siew Chen Davies1, Louise McHugh1, Marianne Aznar2, Josh Lindsay2, Cynthia Eccles1,2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 2. Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This work evaluated the on-treatment imaging workflow in the UK's first proton beam therapy (PBT) centre, with a view to reducing times and unnecessary imaging doses to patients. METHODS: Imaging dose and timing data from the first 20 patients (70% paediatrics, 30% TYA/adult) treated with PBT using the initial image-guided PBT (IGPBT) workflow of a 2-dimensional kilo-voltage (2DkV), followed by cone-beam computed-tomography (CBCT) and repeat 2DkV was included. Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe correlations between 2DkV and CBCT images to determine if any images were superfluous. RESULTS: 229 treatment sessions were evaluated. Patient repositioning following the initial 2DkV (i2DkV) was required on 19 (8.3%) fractions. This three-step process resulted in an additional mean imaging dose of 3.4 mGy per patient, and 5.1 minutes on the treatment bed for the patient, over a whole course of PBT, compared to a two-step workflow (removing the i2DkV image). Correspondence between the mean displacements from i2DkV and CBCT was high, with R = 0.94, 0.94 and 0.80 in the anteroposterior, superiorinferior and right-left directions, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed very little bias and narrow limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the i2DkV, streamlining to a two-step workflow, would reduce treatment times and imaging dose, and has been implemented as standard verification protocol. For challenging cases (e.g. paediatric patients under GA), further investigations are required before the three-step workflow can be modified. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first report assessing a preliminary imaging protocol in PBT in the UK and determining a way to reduce dose and time, which ultimately benefits the patient.
OBJECTIVES: This work evaluated the on-treatment imaging workflow in the UK's first proton beam therapy (PBT) centre, with a view to reducing times and unnecessary imaging doses to patients. METHODS: Imaging dose and timing data from the first 20 patients (70% paediatrics, 30% TYA/adult) treated with PBT using the initial image-guided PBT (IGPBT) workflow of a 2-dimensional kilo-voltage (2DkV), followed by cone-beam computed-tomography (CBCT) and repeat 2DkV was included. Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe correlations between 2DkV and CBCT images to determine if any images were superfluous. RESULTS: 229 treatment sessions were evaluated. Patient repositioning following the initial 2DkV (i2DkV) was required on 19 (8.3%) fractions. This three-step process resulted in an additional mean imaging dose of 3.4 mGy per patient, and 5.1 minutes on the treatment bed for the patient, over a whole course of PBT, compared to a two-step workflow (removing the i2DkV image). Correspondence between the mean displacements from i2DkV and CBCT was high, with R = 0.94, 0.94 and 0.80 in the anteroposterior, superiorinferior and right-left directions, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed very little bias and narrow limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the i2DkV, streamlining to a two-step workflow, would reduce treatment times and imaging dose, and has been implemented as standard verification protocol. For challenging cases (e.g. paediatric patients under GA), further investigations are required before the three-step workflow can be modified. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first report assessing a preliminary imaging protocol in PBT in the UK and determining a way to reduce dose and time, which ultimately benefits the patient.
Authors: Sara R Alcorn; Michael J Chen; Line Claude; Karin Dieckmann; Ralph P Ermoian; Eric C Ford; Claude Malet; Shannon M MacDonald; Alexey V Nechesnyuk; Kristina Nilsson; Rosangela C Villar; Brian A Winey; Erik J Tryggestad; Stephanie A Terezakis Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-05-14