Cargando…
Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients
PURPOSE: This study compared three different methods used in registering cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image set with planning CT image set for determining patient setup uncertainties during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven breas...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6299751/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30636845 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_67_18 |
_version_ | 1783381554428379136 |
---|---|
author | Mohandass, P. Khanna, D. Kumar, T. Manoj Thiyagaraj, T. Saravanan, C. Bhalla, Narendra Kumar Puri, Abhishek |
author_facet | Mohandass, P. Khanna, D. Kumar, T. Manoj Thiyagaraj, T. Saravanan, C. Bhalla, Narendra Kumar Puri, Abhishek |
author_sort | Mohandass, P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This study compared three different methods used in registering cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image set with planning CT image set for determining patient setup uncertainties during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven breast cancer patients treated with 50 Gy in 25 fractions using VMAT technique were chosen for this study. A total of 105 CBCT scans were acquired by image guidance protocol for patient setup verification. Approved plans’ CT images were used as the reference image sets for registration with their corresponding CBCT image sets. Setup errors in mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior direction were determined using gray-scale matching between the reference CT images and onboard CBCT images. Patient setup verification was performed using clip-box registration (CBR) method during online imaging. Considering the CBR method as the reference, two more registrations were performed using mask registration (MR) method and dual registration (DR) (CBR + MR) method in the offline mode. For comparison, systematic error (∑), random error (σ), mean displacement vector (R), mean setup error (M), and registration time (R(t)) were analyzed. Post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference test was performed for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Systematic and random errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). The mean displacement error and mean setup errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). Increased R(t) was observed in DR as compared to CBR and MR (P < 0.05). In addition, multiple comparisons did not show any significant difference in patient setup error (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For breast VMAT plan delivery, all three registration methods show insignificant variation in patient setup error. One can use any of the three registration methods for patient setup verification. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6299751 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62997512019-01-11 Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients Mohandass, P. Khanna, D. Kumar, T. Manoj Thiyagaraj, T. Saravanan, C. Bhalla, Narendra Kumar Puri, Abhishek J Med Phys Original Article PURPOSE: This study compared three different methods used in registering cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image set with planning CT image set for determining patient setup uncertainties during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven breast cancer patients treated with 50 Gy in 25 fractions using VMAT technique were chosen for this study. A total of 105 CBCT scans were acquired by image guidance protocol for patient setup verification. Approved plans’ CT images were used as the reference image sets for registration with their corresponding CBCT image sets. Setup errors in mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior direction were determined using gray-scale matching between the reference CT images and onboard CBCT images. Patient setup verification was performed using clip-box registration (CBR) method during online imaging. Considering the CBR method as the reference, two more registrations were performed using mask registration (MR) method and dual registration (DR) (CBR + MR) method in the offline mode. For comparison, systematic error (∑), random error (σ), mean displacement vector (R), mean setup error (M), and registration time (R(t)) were analyzed. Post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference test was performed for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Systematic and random errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). The mean displacement error and mean setup errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). Increased R(t) was observed in DR as compared to CBR and MR (P < 0.05). In addition, multiple comparisons did not show any significant difference in patient setup error (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For breast VMAT plan delivery, all three registration methods show insignificant variation in patient setup error. One can use any of the three registration methods for patient setup verification. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6299751/ /pubmed/30636845 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_67_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Medical Physics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Mohandass, P. Khanna, D. Kumar, T. Manoj Thiyagaraj, T. Saravanan, C. Bhalla, Narendra Kumar Puri, Abhishek Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title | Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title_full | Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title_fullStr | Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title_short | Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients |
title_sort | study to compare the effect of different registration methods on patient setup uncertainties in cone-beam computed tomography during volumetric modulated arc therapy for breast cancer patients |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6299751/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30636845 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_67_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohandassp studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT khannad studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT kumartmanoj studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT thiyagarajt studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT saravananc studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT bhallanarendrakumar studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients AT puriabhishek studytocomparetheeffectofdifferentregistrationmethodsonpatientsetupuncertaintiesinconebeamcomputedtomographyduringvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforbreastcancerpatients |