Cargando…

A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy

BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of different immobilization systems, which may affect set-up errors, remains uncertain. Immobilization systems and their corresponding set-up errors influence the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins and thus may result in undesirable treatme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: White, Peter, Yee, Chui Ka, Shan, Lee Chi, Chung, Lee Wai, Man, Ng Ho, Cheung, Yik Shing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24447702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-29
_version_ 1782301404607545344
author White, Peter
Yee, Chui Ka
Shan, Lee Chi
Chung, Lee Wai
Man, Ng Ho
Cheung, Yik Shing
author_facet White, Peter
Yee, Chui Ka
Shan, Lee Chi
Chung, Lee Wai
Man, Ng Ho
Cheung, Yik Shing
author_sort White, Peter
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of different immobilization systems, which may affect set-up errors, remains uncertain. Immobilization systems and their corresponding set-up errors influence the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins and thus may result in undesirable treatment outcomes. This study compared the reproducibility of patient positioning with Hipfix system and whole body alpha cradle with respect to localized prostate cancer and investigated the existing CTV-PTV margins in the clinical oncology departments of two hospitals. METHODS: Forty sets of data of patients with localized T1-T3 prostate cancer were randomly selected from two regional hospitals, with 20 patients immobilized by a whole-body alpha cradle system and 20 by a thermoplastic Hipfix system. Seven sets of the anterior-posterior (AP), cranial-caudal (CC) and medial-lateral (ML) deviations were collected from each patient. The reproducibility of patient positioning within the two hospitals was compared using a total vector error (TVE) parameter. In addition, CTV-PTV margins were computed using van Herk’s formula. The resulting values were compared to the current CTV-PTV margins in both hospitals. RESULTS: The TVE values were 5.1 and 2.8 mm for the Hipfix and the whole-body alpha cradle systems respectively. TVE associated with the whole-body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly less than the Hipfix system (p < 0.05). The CC axis in the Hipfix system attained the highest frequency of large (23.6%) and serious (7.9%) set-up errors. The calculated CTV to PTV margin was 8.3, 1.9 and 2.3 mm for the Hipfix system, and 2.1, 3.4 and 1.8 mm for the whole body alpha cradle in CC, ML and AP axes respectively. All but one (CC axis using Hipfix) margin calculated did not exceed the corresponding hospital protocol. The whole body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly better than the Hipfix system in terms of reproducibility (p < 0.05), especially in the CC axis. CONCLUSIONS: The whole body alpha cradle system was more reproducible than the Hipfix system. In particular, the difference in CC axis contributed most to the results and the current CC margin for the Hipfix system might be considered as inadequate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3905910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39059102014-02-11 A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy White, Peter Yee, Chui Ka Shan, Lee Chi Chung, Lee Wai Man, Ng Ho Cheung, Yik Shing Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of different immobilization systems, which may affect set-up errors, remains uncertain. Immobilization systems and their corresponding set-up errors influence the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins and thus may result in undesirable treatment outcomes. This study compared the reproducibility of patient positioning with Hipfix system and whole body alpha cradle with respect to localized prostate cancer and investigated the existing CTV-PTV margins in the clinical oncology departments of two hospitals. METHODS: Forty sets of data of patients with localized T1-T3 prostate cancer were randomly selected from two regional hospitals, with 20 patients immobilized by a whole-body alpha cradle system and 20 by a thermoplastic Hipfix system. Seven sets of the anterior-posterior (AP), cranial-caudal (CC) and medial-lateral (ML) deviations were collected from each patient. The reproducibility of patient positioning within the two hospitals was compared using a total vector error (TVE) parameter. In addition, CTV-PTV margins were computed using van Herk’s formula. The resulting values were compared to the current CTV-PTV margins in both hospitals. RESULTS: The TVE values were 5.1 and 2.8 mm for the Hipfix and the whole-body alpha cradle systems respectively. TVE associated with the whole-body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly less than the Hipfix system (p < 0.05). The CC axis in the Hipfix system attained the highest frequency of large (23.6%) and serious (7.9%) set-up errors. The calculated CTV to PTV margin was 8.3, 1.9 and 2.3 mm for the Hipfix system, and 2.1, 3.4 and 1.8 mm for the whole body alpha cradle in CC, ML and AP axes respectively. All but one (CC axis using Hipfix) margin calculated did not exceed the corresponding hospital protocol. The whole body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly better than the Hipfix system in terms of reproducibility (p < 0.05), especially in the CC axis. CONCLUSIONS: The whole body alpha cradle system was more reproducible than the Hipfix system. In particular, the difference in CC axis contributed most to the results and the current CC margin for the Hipfix system might be considered as inadequate. BioMed Central 2014-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3905910/ /pubmed/24447702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-29 Text en Copyright © 2014 White et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
White, Peter
Yee, Chui Ka
Shan, Lee Chi
Chung, Lee Wai
Man, Ng Ho
Cheung, Yik Shing
A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title_full A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title_fullStr A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title_short A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
title_sort comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24447702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-29
work_keys_str_mv AT whitepeter acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT yeechuika acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT shanleechi acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT chungleewai acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT manngho acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT cheungyikshing acomparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT whitepeter comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT yeechuika comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT shanleechi comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT chungleewai comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT manngho comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy
AT cheungyikshing comparisonoftwosystemsofpatientimmobilizationforprostateradiotherapy