Cargando…

Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks

A computed tomography (CT) scanner was installed in the linear accelerator room (Primatom) at Morristown. Since June 2000, we have been providing prostate, lung, and liver cancer patients with fusion of CT and linac radiation treatment. This paper describes our registration methods between planning...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fung, Albert Y. C., Grimm, S.‐Y. Lisa, Wong, James R., Uematsu, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2525
_version_ 1783285368197480448
author Fung, Albert Y. C.
Grimm, S.‐Y. Lisa
Wong, James R.
Uematsu, M.
author_facet Fung, Albert Y. C.
Grimm, S.‐Y. Lisa
Wong, James R.
Uematsu, M.
author_sort Fung, Albert Y. C.
collection PubMed
description A computed tomography (CT) scanner was installed in the linear accelerator room (Primatom) at Morristown. Since June 2000, we have been providing prostate, lung, and liver cancer patients with fusion of CT and linac radiation treatment. This paper describes our registration methods between planning and treatment CT images, and compares treatment localization by CT versus conventional localization by bony landmarks such as portal imaging. For image registration, we printed out beforehand the beam's eye view of the treatment fields. Prostate tumor volume from each Primatom CT slice was mapped on the printouts, and the necessary isocenter shift relative to the skin marks was deduced. No port film was necessary for our Primatom patients. For ten patients we generated digitally‐reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) with bone contrast from the CT scans, and deduced the required shift as the difference between the DRRs of the Primatom CT versus the planning CT This represented the best observable shift should portal imaging be employed. Shift from bony landmark significantly correlated with the Primatom CT shift. Positioning adjustment based on bony anatomy was generally in the same direction as the CT shift for individual patient, but frequently did not go far enough. Our study confirmed that prostate organ motion relative to the bones has an average length of 4.7 mm (with standard deviation of 2.7 mm), and indicated the superiority of CT versus conventional bony structure (such as portal imaging) localization. PACS number(s): 87.53.Kn, 87.53.–j
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724476
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57244762018-04-02 Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks Fung, Albert Y. C. Grimm, S.‐Y. Lisa Wong, James R. Uematsu, M. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics A computed tomography (CT) scanner was installed in the linear accelerator room (Primatom) at Morristown. Since June 2000, we have been providing prostate, lung, and liver cancer patients with fusion of CT and linac radiation treatment. This paper describes our registration methods between planning and treatment CT images, and compares treatment localization by CT versus conventional localization by bony landmarks such as portal imaging. For image registration, we printed out beforehand the beam's eye view of the treatment fields. Prostate tumor volume from each Primatom CT slice was mapped on the printouts, and the necessary isocenter shift relative to the skin marks was deduced. No port film was necessary for our Primatom patients. For ten patients we generated digitally‐reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) with bone contrast from the CT scans, and deduced the required shift as the difference between the DRRs of the Primatom CT versus the planning CT This represented the best observable shift should portal imaging be employed. Shift from bony landmark significantly correlated with the Primatom CT shift. Positioning adjustment based on bony anatomy was generally in the same direction as the CT shift for individual patient, but frequently did not go far enough. Our study confirmed that prostate organ motion relative to the bones has an average length of 4.7 mm (with standard deviation of 2.7 mm), and indicated the superiority of CT versus conventional bony structure (such as portal imaging) localization. PACS number(s): 87.53.Kn, 87.53.–j John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724476/ /pubmed/12777145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2525 Text en © 2003 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Fung, Albert Y. C.
Grimm, S.‐Y. Lisa
Wong, James R.
Uematsu, M.
Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title_full Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title_fullStr Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title_full_unstemmed Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title_short Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
title_sort computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2525
work_keys_str_mv AT fungalbertyc computedtomographylocalizationofradiationtreatmentdeliveryversusconventionallocalizationwithbonylandmarks
AT grimmsylisa computedtomographylocalizationofradiationtreatmentdeliveryversusconventionallocalizationwithbonylandmarks
AT wongjamesr computedtomographylocalizationofradiationtreatmentdeliveryversusconventionallocalizationwithbonylandmarks
AT uematsum computedtomographylocalizationofradiationtreatmentdeliveryversusconventionallocalizationwithbonylandmarks