Cargando…

Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION: To compare the differences in setup errors measured with electronic portal image (EPI) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients undergoing tangential breast radiotherapy (RT). Relationship between setup errors, body mass index (BMI) and breast size was assessed. METHODS: Tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batumalai, Vikneswary, Phan, Penny, Choong, Callie, Holloway, Lois, Delaney, Geoff P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5167282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.180
_version_ 1782483151972466688
author Batumalai, Vikneswary
Phan, Penny
Choong, Callie
Holloway, Lois
Delaney, Geoff P.
author_facet Batumalai, Vikneswary
Phan, Penny
Choong, Callie
Holloway, Lois
Delaney, Geoff P.
author_sort Batumalai, Vikneswary
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: To compare the differences in setup errors measured with electronic portal image (EPI) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients undergoing tangential breast radiotherapy (RT). Relationship between setup errors, body mass index (BMI) and breast size was assessed. METHODS: Twenty‐five patients undergoing postoperative RT to the breast were consented for this study. Weekly CBCT scans were acquired and retrospectively registered to the planning CT in three dimensions, first using bony anatomy for bony registration (CBCT‐B) and again using breast tissue outline for soft tissue registration (CBCT‐S). Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) generated from CBCT to simulate EPI were compared to the planning DRR using bony anatomy in the V (parallel to the cranio‐caudal axis) and U (perpendicular to V) planes. The systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were calculated and correlated with BMI and breast size. RESULTS: The systematic and random errors for EPI (Σ (V) = 3.7 mm, Σ (U) = 2.8 mm and σ (V) = 2.9 mm, σ (U) = 2.5) and CBCT‐B (Σ (V) = 3.5 mm, Σ (U) = 3.4 mm and σ (V) = 2.8 mm, σ (U) = 2.8) were of similar magnitude in the V and U planes. Similarly, the differences in setup errors for CBCT‐B and CBCT‐S in three dimensions were less than 1 mm. Only CBCT‐S setup error correlated with BMI and breast size. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT and EPI show insignificant variation in their ability to detect setup error. These findings suggest no significant differences that would make one modality considered superior over the other and EPI should remain the standard of care for most patients. However, there is a correlation with breast size, BMI and setup error as detected by CBCT‐S, justifying the use of CBCT‐S for larger patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5167282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51672822016-12-28 Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy Batumalai, Vikneswary Phan, Penny Choong, Callie Holloway, Lois Delaney, Geoff P. J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: To compare the differences in setup errors measured with electronic portal image (EPI) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients undergoing tangential breast radiotherapy (RT). Relationship between setup errors, body mass index (BMI) and breast size was assessed. METHODS: Twenty‐five patients undergoing postoperative RT to the breast were consented for this study. Weekly CBCT scans were acquired and retrospectively registered to the planning CT in three dimensions, first using bony anatomy for bony registration (CBCT‐B) and again using breast tissue outline for soft tissue registration (CBCT‐S). Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) generated from CBCT to simulate EPI were compared to the planning DRR using bony anatomy in the V (parallel to the cranio‐caudal axis) and U (perpendicular to V) planes. The systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were calculated and correlated with BMI and breast size. RESULTS: The systematic and random errors for EPI (Σ (V) = 3.7 mm, Σ (U) = 2.8 mm and σ (V) = 2.9 mm, σ (U) = 2.5) and CBCT‐B (Σ (V) = 3.5 mm, Σ (U) = 3.4 mm and σ (V) = 2.8 mm, σ (U) = 2.8) were of similar magnitude in the V and U planes. Similarly, the differences in setup errors for CBCT‐B and CBCT‐S in three dimensions were less than 1 mm. Only CBCT‐S setup error correlated with BMI and breast size. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT and EPI show insignificant variation in their ability to detect setup error. These findings suggest no significant differences that would make one modality considered superior over the other and EPI should remain the standard of care for most patients. However, there is a correlation with breast size, BMI and setup error as detected by CBCT‐S, justifying the use of CBCT‐S for larger patients. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-31 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5167282/ /pubmed/27741383 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.180 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Batumalai, Vikneswary
Phan, Penny
Choong, Callie
Holloway, Lois
Delaney, Geoff P.
Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title_full Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title_fullStr Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title_short Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
title_sort comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5167282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.180
work_keys_str_mv AT batumalaivikneswary comparisonofsetupaccuracyofthreedifferentimageassessmentmethodsfortangentialbreastradiotherapy
AT phanpenny comparisonofsetupaccuracyofthreedifferentimageassessmentmethodsfortangentialbreastradiotherapy
AT choongcallie comparisonofsetupaccuracyofthreedifferentimageassessmentmethodsfortangentialbreastradiotherapy
AT hollowaylois comparisonofsetupaccuracyofthreedifferentimageassessmentmethodsfortangentialbreastradiotherapy
AT delaneygeoffp comparisonofsetupaccuracyofthreedifferentimageassessmentmethodsfortangentialbreastradiotherapy