Comparison of geometrical uncertainties in the radiotherapy for various treatment sites with two different immobilization marking methods

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The skin marking method (SMM) and bow-form-ruler marking method (BFRM) are two commonly used patient marking methods in mainland China. This study aims to evaluate SMM and BFRM by comparing the inter-fraction setup errors from using these two methods together with vacuum cushion immobilization in patients underwent radiotherapy for different treatment sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Eighteen patients diagnosed with pelvic, abdominal and thoracic malignant tumors (with 6 patients per treatment site) were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients were immobilized with vacuum cushion. Each patient was marked by both SMM and BFRM before computed tomography (CT) simulation. Target location was verified by cone beam CT images with displacements assessed prior to each sampled treatment session. The localization errors in three translational and three rotational directions were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS:

Images from 108 fractions in 18 patients produced 324 translational and 324 rotational comparisons for SMM and BFRM. The setup errors of all treatment sites showed no difference in two marking methods in any directions (p > 0.05). In subgroups of treatment site analysis, SMM significantly lessened the lateral and yaw setup errors compared to BFRM in the pelvic sites (0.39±1.85 mm vs –1.28±1.13 mm, p < 0.01 and –0.19±0.59° vs –0.61±0.59°, p < 0.05). However, in the abdominal subgroup, BFRM was superior to SMM for reduced vertical errors (0.17±2.73 mm vs 2.28±3.16 mm, p < 0.05). For the underweight or obese patients (with Body Mass Index, BMI < 18.5 or BMI≥24), SMM resulted in less yaw errors compared to BFRM (–0.05±0.38° vs –0.43±0.48°, p < 0.05). No significant difference between SMM and BFRM in setup errors of normal weighted patients (18.5≤BMI < 24) was observed for all three studied treatment sites.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study shows no significant difference in patient setup errors for various treatment sites between SMM and BFRM in general. SMM may be suitable for the pelvic tumor and patients with BMI < 18.5 or BMI≥24, while BFRM is recommended for the abdominal tumor sites.

Keywords

Marking method tumors vacuum cushion setup errors cone beam computed tomography

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tian

, Zhang

, Advances of technology in radiation oncology, Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases 5(4) (2016), 287–291.

Michalski

J.M.

, Graham

M.V.

, Bosch

W.R.

, et al., Prospective clinical evaluation of an electronic portal imaging device, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34(4) (1996), 943–951.

Jin

, Keeling

V.P.

, Ali

, et al., Dosimetric effects of positioning shifts using 6D-frameless stereotactic Brainlab system in hypofractionated intracranial radiotherapy, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 17(1) (2016), 102–111.

Lee

Y.K.

, Kim

A.T.

, Zhao

, et al., Practical dose delivery verification of craniospinal IMRT, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 16(6) (2015), 76–83.

Yang

, Cao

, Kaprealian

, et al., Accuracy of UTE-MRI-based patient setup for brain cancer radiation therapy, Medical Physics 43(1) (2016), 262–267.

Zhang

, Zhang

, Gan

, et al., Setup uncertainties in linear accelerator based stereotactic radiosurgery and a derivation of the corresponding setup margin for treatment planning, Physica Medica 32(2) (2016), 379–385.

Mccowan

P.M.

, Mccurdy

B.M.

, Frame average optimization of cine-mode EPID images used for routine clinical in vivo patient dose verification of VMAT deliveries, Medical Physics 43(1) (2016), 254–261.

Zhang

X.M.

, Li

M.H.

, Cao

J.Z.

, et al., Dose distribution variation of target volumes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 19(3) (2010), 197–200.

Yoon

, Cheong

, Kim

, et al., Accuracy of an automatic patient-positioning system based on the correlation of two edge images in radiotherapy, Journal of Digital Imaging 24(2) (2011), 322–330.

10.

Jassal

Kanan

, Bisht

and Kataria

, et al., Comparison of geometrical uncertainties in breast radiation therapy with different immobilization methods, Nuclear Medicine & Radiation Therapy 4(1) (2013), 2155–9619.

11.

Cheung

Tsang

, Butson

Martin J.

and Yu

Peter K.N.

, Evaluation of buildup dose from 6MV X-ray under pelvic and abdominal patient immobilization devices, Radiation Measurement 35(3) (2002), 235–238.

12.

Wurstbauer

, Sedlmayer

F.H.

, Skin markings in external radiotherapy by temporary tattooing with henna: Improvement of accuracy and increased patient comfort, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50(1) (2001), 179–181.

13.

Greer

P.B.

, Mortensen

T.M.

, Anterior-posterior treatment localization in pelvic radiotherapy: Tattoos or fixed couch-to-isocenter distance, Medical Dosimetry 22(22) (1997), 43–46.

14.

Mutic

, Palta

J.R.

, Butker

E.K.

, et al., Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66, Medical Physics 30(10) (2003), 2762–2792.

15.

Pisani

, Lockman

, Jaffray

, et al., Setup error in radiotherapy: On-line correction using electronic kilovoltage and megavoltage radiographs, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47(3) (2000), 825–839.

16.

Rathod

, Munshi

, Agarwal

, Skin markings methods and guidelines: A reality in image guidance radiotherapy era, South Asian Journal of Cancer 1(1) (2012), 27–29.

17.

Griffiths

, Murphy

, The use of henna as an alternative skin marker in breast disease, Radiography 18(4) (2012), 279–286.

18.

Wurstbauer

, Deutschmann

, Kranzinger

, et al., Radiotherapy for lung cancer: Target splitting by asymmetric collimation enables reduction of radiation doses to normal tissues and dose escalation, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44(2) (1999), 333–41.

19.

, Zhu

, Li

, et al., Quality assurance in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for head and neck tumors, Chin J Radiol Med Prot 25(1) (2005), 67–69.

20.

Wang

, Technical operation and experience of conformal radiotherapy for malignant tumors of body, Journal of Modern Medicine and Health 22(14) (2006), 2199–2200.

21.

Y.M.

, Yang

D.Y.

, Tumor radiotherapy technique, United Press of Peking Union Medical College, Beijing Medical University, Beijing, 1999.

22.

Foster

, Meyer

, Iyengar

, et al., Localization accuracy and immobilization effectiveness of a stereotactic body frame for a variety of treatment sites, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(5) (2013), 911–916.

23.

Han

, Cheung

, Basran

P.S.

, et al., A comparison of two immobilization systems for stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung tumors, Radiotherapy & Oncology Journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology 95(1) (2010), 103–108.

24.

Wang

, Nelson

J.W.

, Yoo

, et al., Refinement of treatment setup and target localization accuracy using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography for stereotactic body radiotherapy, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(2) (2009), 571–577.

25.

Ohira

, Ueda

, Nishiyama

, et al., Couch height-based patient setup for abdominal radiation therapy, Medical Dosimetry Official Journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 41(1) (2016), 59–63.

26.

Case

R.B.

, Sonke

J.J.

, Moseley

D.J.

, et al., Inter- and intrafraction variability in liver position in non–breath-hold stereotactic body radiotherapy, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75(1) (2009), 302–308.

27.

Chen

B.M.

, Design of a New type of radiotherapy bed, China Medical Equipment 23(7) (2008), 22–24.

28.

Cao

, Yuelin

, Zhonghong

L.U.

, Movement of pulmonary lesion and diaphragm in stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancers, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 9(4) (2000), 262–265.