Cargando…

Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the interfractional setup reproducibility of two types of patient immobilization devices for prostate cancer receiving image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MOLDCARE (MC) involves hydraulic fixation, whereas the BlueBAG (BB) an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inui, Shoki, Ueda, Yoshihiro, Ohira, Shingo, Isono, Masaru, Masaoka, Akira, Murata, Seiya, Nitta, Yuya, Karino, Tsukasa, Miyazaki, Masayoshi, Teshima, Teruki
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/PMC6299756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30636848
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_20_18
_version_ 1783381555592298496
author Inui, Shoki
Ueda, Yoshihiro
Ohira, Shingo
Isono, Masaru
Masaoka, Akira
Murata, Seiya
Nitta, Yuya
Karino, Tsukasa
Miyazaki, Masayoshi
Teshima, Teruki
author_facet Inui, Shoki
Ueda, Yoshihiro
Ohira, Shingo
Isono, Masaru
Masaoka, Akira
Murata, Seiya
Nitta, Yuya
Karino, Tsukasa
Miyazaki, Masayoshi
Teshima, Teruki
author_sort Inui, Shoki
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the interfractional setup reproducibility of two types of patient immobilization devices for prostate cancer receiving image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MOLDCARE (MC) involves hydraulic fixation, whereas the BlueBAG (BB) and Vac-Lock (VL) involve vacuum fixation. For 72 patients, each immobilization device was individually customized during computed tomography (CT) simulation. Before the treatment, bony registration was performed using orthogonal kV images and digitally reconstructed radiographs. The shift of the treatment couch was recorded as a benchmark in the first session. In subsequent sessions, the shifts from the benchmark were measured and analyzed. Soft-tissue registration was performed weekly by cone-beam CT and CT images, and the shifts were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: In the superior-inferior and left-right directions, there were nearly no changes in the overall mean among the immobilization devices. In the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, the overall mean for the MC, BB, and VL were 0.34 ± 1.33, −0.47 ± 1.27, and −1.82 ± 1.65 mm, respectively. The mean shifts along the AP direction were approximately 1 mm more in patients immobilized on the BB and 2.5 mm more in those on the VL, compared to those on the MC, after the twentieth treatment. No significant changes were observed among the patients immobilized on those devices, respectively, in soft-tissue registration. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the settling of the vacuum fixation was caused by air leakage in the latter-half treatment, and the immobilization device type has no effect on the treatment-position reproducibility in IGRT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6299756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62997562019-01-11 Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Inui, Shoki Ueda, Yoshihiro Ohira, Shingo Isono, Masaru Masaoka, Akira Murata, Seiya Nitta, Yuya Karino, Tsukasa Miyazaki, Masayoshi Teshima, Teruki J Med Phys Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the interfractional setup reproducibility of two types of patient immobilization devices for prostate cancer receiving image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MOLDCARE (MC) involves hydraulic fixation, whereas the BlueBAG (BB) and Vac-Lock (VL) involve vacuum fixation. For 72 patients, each immobilization device was individually customized during computed tomography (CT) simulation. Before the treatment, bony registration was performed using orthogonal kV images and digitally reconstructed radiographs. The shift of the treatment couch was recorded as a benchmark in the first session. In subsequent sessions, the shifts from the benchmark were measured and analyzed. Soft-tissue registration was performed weekly by cone-beam CT and CT images, and the shifts were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: In the superior-inferior and left-right directions, there were nearly no changes in the overall mean among the immobilization devices. In the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, the overall mean for the MC, BB, and VL were 0.34 ± 1.33, −0.47 ± 1.27, and −1.82 ± 1.65 mm, respectively. The mean shifts along the AP direction were approximately 1 mm more in patients immobilized on the BB and 2.5 mm more in those on the VL, compared to those on the MC, after the twentieth treatment. No significant changes were observed among the patients immobilized on those devices, respectively, in soft-tissue registration. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the settling of the vacuum fixation was caused by air leakage in the latter-half treatment, and the immobilization device type has no effect on the treatment-position reproducibility in IGRT. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6299756/ /pubmed/30636848 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_20_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
Inui, Shoki
Ueda, Yoshihiro
Ohira, Shingo
Isono, Masaru
Masaoka, Akira
Murata, Seiya
Nitta, Yuya
Karino, Tsukasa
Miyazaki, Masayoshi
Teshima, Teruki
Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title_full Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title_short Comparison of Interfractional Setup Reproducibility between Two Types of Patient Immobilization Devices in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
title_sort comparison of interfractional setup reproducibility between two types of patient immobilization devices in image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6299756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30636848
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_20_18
work_keys_str_mv AT inuishoki comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT uedayoshihiro comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT ohirashingo comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT isonomasaru comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT masaokaakira comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT murataseiya comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT nittayuya comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT karinotsukasa comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT miyazakimasayoshi comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer
AT teshimateruki comparisonofinterfractionalsetupreproducibilitybetweentwotypesofpatientimmobilizationdevicesinimageguidedradiationtherapyforprostatecancer