Cargando…

Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy

A surface imaging system, Catalyst (C‐Rad), was compared with laser‐based positioning and daily mega voltage computed tomography (MVCT) setup for breast patients with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy. Catalyst‐based positioning performed better than laser‐based positioning. The respe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crop, Frederik, Pasquier, David, Baczkiewic, Amandine, Doré, Julie, Bequet, Lena, Steux, Emeline, Gadroy, Anne, Bouillon, Jacqueline, Florence, Clement, Muszynski, Laurence, Lacour, Mathilde, Lartigau, Eric
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/PMC5874112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6041
_version_ 1783310107133607936
author Crop, Frederik
Pasquier, David
Baczkiewic, Amandine
Doré, Julie
Bequet, Lena
Steux, Emeline
Gadroy, Anne
Bouillon, Jacqueline
Florence, Clement
Muszynski, Laurence
Lacour, Mathilde
Lartigau, Eric
author_facet Crop, Frederik
Pasquier, David
Baczkiewic, Amandine
Doré, Julie
Bequet, Lena
Steux, Emeline
Gadroy, Anne
Bouillon, Jacqueline
Florence, Clement
Muszynski, Laurence
Lacour, Mathilde
Lartigau, Eric
author_sort Crop, Frederik
collection PubMed
description A surface imaging system, Catalyst (C‐Rad), was compared with laser‐based positioning and daily mega voltage computed tomography (MVCT) setup for breast patients with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy. Catalyst‐based positioning performed better than laser‐based positioning. The respective modalities resulted in a standard deviation (SD), 68% confidence interval (CI) of positioning of left–right, craniocaudal, anterior–posterior, roll: 2.4 mm, 2.7 mm, 2.4 mm, 0.9° for Catalyst positioning, and 6.1 mm, 3.8 mm, 4.9 mm, 1.1° for laser‐based positioning, respectively. MVCT‐based precision is a combination of the interoperator variability for MVCT fusion and the patient movement during the time it takes for MVCT and fusion. The MVCT fusion interoperator variability for breast patients was evaluated at one SD left–right, craniocaudal, ant–post, roll as: 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.0°. There was no statistically significant difference between the automatic MVCT registration result and the manual adjustment; the automatic fusion results were within the 95% CI of the mean result of 10 users, except for one specific case where the patient was positioned with large yaw. We found that users add variability to the roll correction as the automatic registration was more consistent. The patient position uncertainty confidence interval was evaluated as 1.9 mm, 2.2 mm, 1.6 mm, 0.9° after 4 min, and 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.2 mm, 1° after 10 min. The combination of this patient movement with MVCT fusion interoperator variability results in total standard deviations of patient position when treatment starts 4 or 10 min after initial positioning of, respectively: 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.3° and 2.7 mm, 3.3 mm, 2.6 mm, 1.4°. Surface based positioning arrives at the same precision when taking into account the time required for MVCT imaging and fusion. These results can be used on a patient‐per‐patient basis to decide which positioning system performs the best after the first 5 fractions and when daily MVCT can be omitted. Ideally, real‐time monitoring is required to reduce important intrafraction movement. PACS number(s): 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Da, 87.63.L‐, 81.70.Tx
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58741122018-04-02 Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy Crop, Frederik Pasquier, David Baczkiewic, Amandine Doré, Julie Bequet, Lena Steux, Emeline Gadroy, Anne Bouillon, Jacqueline Florence, Clement Muszynski, Laurence Lacour, Mathilde Lartigau, Eric J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics A surface imaging system, Catalyst (C‐Rad), was compared with laser‐based positioning and daily mega voltage computed tomography (MVCT) setup for breast patients with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy. Catalyst‐based positioning performed better than laser‐based positioning. The respective modalities resulted in a standard deviation (SD), 68% confidence interval (CI) of positioning of left–right, craniocaudal, anterior–posterior, roll: 2.4 mm, 2.7 mm, 2.4 mm, 0.9° for Catalyst positioning, and 6.1 mm, 3.8 mm, 4.9 mm, 1.1° for laser‐based positioning, respectively. MVCT‐based precision is a combination of the interoperator variability for MVCT fusion and the patient movement during the time it takes for MVCT and fusion. The MVCT fusion interoperator variability for breast patients was evaluated at one SD left–right, craniocaudal, ant–post, roll as: 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.0°. There was no statistically significant difference between the automatic MVCT registration result and the manual adjustment; the automatic fusion results were within the 95% CI of the mean result of 10 users, except for one specific case where the patient was positioned with large yaw. We found that users add variability to the roll correction as the automatic registration was more consistent. The patient position uncertainty confidence interval was evaluated as 1.9 mm, 2.2 mm, 1.6 mm, 0.9° after 4 min, and 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.2 mm, 1° after 10 min. The combination of this patient movement with MVCT fusion interoperator variability results in total standard deviations of patient position when treatment starts 4 or 10 min after initial positioning of, respectively: 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.3° and 2.7 mm, 3.3 mm, 2.6 mm, 1.4°. Surface based positioning arrives at the same precision when taking into account the time required for MVCT imaging and fusion. These results can be used on a patient‐per‐patient basis to decide which positioning system performs the best after the first 5 fractions and when daily MVCT can be omitted. Ideally, real‐time monitoring is required to reduce important intrafraction movement. PACS number(s): 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Da, 87.63.L‐, 81.70.Tx John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874112/ /pubmed/27685103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6041 Text en © 2016 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
Crop, Frederik
Pasquier, David
Baczkiewic, Amandine
Doré, Julie
Bequet, Lena
Steux, Emeline
Gadroy, Anne
Bouillon, Jacqueline
Florence, Clement
Muszynski, Laurence
Lacour, Mathilde
Lartigau, Eric
Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title_full Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title_fullStr Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title_full_unstemmed Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title_short Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy
title_sort surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical tomotherapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6041
work_keys_str_mv AT cropfrederik surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT pasquierdavid surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT baczkiewicamandine surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT dorejulie surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT bequetlena surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT steuxemeline surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT gadroyanne surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT bouillonjacqueline surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT florenceclement surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT muszynskilaurence surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT lacourmathilde surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy
AT lartigaueric surfaceimaginglaserpositioningorvolumetricimagingforbreastcancerwithnodalinvolvementtreatedbyhelicaltomotherapy