COMPARISON OF GEOMETRIC ERRORS IN RADIATION THERAPY DEPENDING ON THE FREQUENCY OF THE PATIENT’S POSITIONING CORRECTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32471/oncology.2663-7928.t-23-1-2021-g.9450Keywords:
anisotropic margins of planning target volume, clinical target volume, monitoring of patient positioning, radiation therapyAbstract
Aim: to determine additional anisotropic margins for planning target volume (PTV) in the absence of daily X-rays monitoring of the patient’s position to reduce the radiation expose on healthy tissues and increase the dose to the tumor. Object and methods: geometric inaccuracies depending on the isocenter location was calculated. Based on tumor location (radiation zone), there were 5 groups of patients devided: head (n = 67), head-and-neck (n = 27), chest (n = 58), abdominal cavity (n = 12), pelvis (n = 58). Patients were treated on a TrueBeam 2.7 accelerator with 3D conformal radiotherapy, IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) and VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy). The Eclipse treatment planning system was used to generate patient treatment plan. Results: the patient displacement vector for each of the localizations was determined. The systematic and random patient set-up errors for all studied irradiation zones were calculated. Van Herk equation was used to calculate anisotropic margins. Conclusion: the main result of the study is that there were determined the anisotropic margins of PTV which should be used in the absence of daily X-rays monitoring of patient positioning. The largest variation was shown to be in the areas of pelvis, abdomen and chest; errors in the areas of the head, head-and-neck are much smaller. It was estimated that in the lateral direction the largest margins are needed.
References
Gildersleve J, Dearnaley DP, Evans PM, Swindell W. Reproducibility of patient positioning during routine radiotherapy, as assessed by an integrated megavoltage imaging system. Radiother oncol 1995; 35 (2): 151–60.
Den RB, Doemer A, Kubicek G, et al. Daily image guidance with cone-beam computed tomography for head-and-neck cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (5): 1353–59.
Walter C, Boda-Heggemann J, Wertz H, et al. Phantom and in-vivo measurements of dose exposure by image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT): MV portal images vs. kV portal images vs. cone-beam CT. Radiother Oncol 2007; 85 (3): 418–23.
Purdie TG, Bissonnette JP, Franks K, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image guidance of lung stereotactic radiotherapy: localization, verification, and intrafraction tumor position. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68 (1): 243–52.
Amer A, Marchant T, Sykes J, et al. Imaging doses from the Elekta Synergy X-ray cone beam CT system. Br J Radiol 2007; 80 (954): 476–82.
Kanakavelu N, Jebaseelan SJ. Determination of patient set-up error and optimal treatment margin for intensity modulated radiotherapy using image guidance system. J BUON 2016; 21 (2): 505–11.
Landberg T, Chavaudra J, Dobbs J, et al. Report 62, Journal of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements1999; os32 (1): https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os32.1.Report62
Dawson LA, Jaffray DA. Advances in image-guided radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 938–46.
Padhani AR, Khoo VS, Suckling J, et al. Evaluating the effect of rectal distension and rectal movement on prostate gland position using cine MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44 (3): 525–33.
Dawson LA, Litzenberg DW, Brock KK, et al. A comparison of ventilatory prostate movement in four treatment positions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48 (2): 319–23.
Van der Heide UA, Kotte ANTJ, Dehnad H, et al. () Analysis of fiducial marker-based position verification in the external beam radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Onco 2007; 82 (1): 38–45.
Thasanthan L, Piyasena W, Croos A, et al. Assessment of three-dimensional set-up errors in pelvic radiation therapy. J Cancer Prev Curr Res 2014; 1 (2): 00009. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2014.01.00009.
Gilbeau L, Octave-Prignot M, Loncol T, et al. Comparison of setup accuracy of three different thermoplastic masks for the treatment of brain and head and neck tumors. Radiother Oncol 2001; 58 (2): 155–62.
Hoskin P, Greener A, Kirby MC, et al. On Target: ensuring geometric accuracy in radiotherapy. A Joint RCR/IPEM/SCoR Report, Royal College of Radiologists, 2008 (RCR, London, UK). ISBN 1-905034-33-8.
Van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Seminars in radiation oncology 2004; 14 (1): 52–64.
Van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque JV. The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47 (4): 1121–35.
Bortfeld T, van Herk M, Jiang SB. When should systematic patient positioning errors in radiotherapy be corrected? Phys Med Biol 2002; 47 (23): N297–N302.
Stroom JC, de Boer HC, Huizenga H, Visser AG. Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43 (4): 905–19.
