Cargando…

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

Purpose: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. Methods and materials: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Hui, Paxton, Adam, Sarkar, Vikren, Price, Ryan G, Huang, Jessica, Su, Fan-Chi Frances, Li, Xing, Rassiah, Prema, Szegedi, Martin, Salter, Bill
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9525098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36196310
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.28644
_version_ 1784800634832158720
author Zhao, Hui
Paxton, Adam
Sarkar, Vikren
Price, Ryan G
Huang, Jessica
Su, Fan-Chi Frances
Li, Xing
Rassiah, Prema
Szegedi, Martin
Salter, Bill
author_facet Zhao, Hui
Paxton, Adam
Sarkar, Vikren
Price, Ryan G
Huang, Jessica
Su, Fan-Chi Frances
Li, Xing
Rassiah, Prema
Szegedi, Martin
Salter, Bill
author_sort Zhao, Hui
collection PubMed
description Purpose: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. Methods and materials: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods. Results: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%). Conclusions: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9525098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95250982022-10-03 Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment? Zhao, Hui Paxton, Adam Sarkar, Vikren Price, Ryan G Huang, Jessica Su, Fan-Chi Frances Li, Xing Rassiah, Prema Szegedi, Martin Salter, Bill Cureus Radiation Oncology Purpose: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. Methods and materials: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods. Results: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%). Conclusions: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for. Cureus 2022-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9525098/ /pubmed/36196310 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.28644 Text en Copyright © 2022, Zhao et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology
Zhao, Hui
Paxton, Adam
Sarkar, Vikren
Price, Ryan G
Huang, Jessica
Su, Fan-Chi Frances
Li, Xing
Rassiah, Prema
Szegedi, Martin
Salter, Bill
Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title_full Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title_fullStr Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title_full_unstemmed Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title_short Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?
title_sort surface-guided patient setup versus traditional tattoo markers for radiation therapy: is tattoo-less setup feasible for thorax, abdomen and pelvis treatment?
topic Radiation Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9525098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36196310
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.28644
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaohui surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT paxtonadam surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT sarkarvikren surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT priceryang surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT huangjessica surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT sufanchifrances surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT lixing surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT rassiahprema surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT szegedimartin surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment
AT salterbill surfaceguidedpatientsetupversustraditionaltattoomarkersforradiationtherapyistattoolesssetupfeasibleforthoraxabdomenandpelvistreatment