Cargando…

A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy

For breast cancer patients treated in the prone position with tangential fields, a diamond‐shaped light field (DSLF) can be used to align with corresponding skin markers for image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT). This study evaluates and compares the benefits of different DSLF setups. Seventy‐one pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Huijun, Cheston, Sally B., Gopal, Arun, Zhang, Baoshe, Chen, Shifeng, Yu, Suhong, Hall, Andrea, Dudley, Sara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36029043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13772
_version_ 1784834448443834368
author Xu, Huijun
Cheston, Sally B.
Gopal, Arun
Zhang, Baoshe
Chen, Shifeng
Yu, Suhong
Hall, Andrea
Dudley, Sara
author_facet Xu, Huijun
Cheston, Sally B.
Gopal, Arun
Zhang, Baoshe
Chen, Shifeng
Yu, Suhong
Hall, Andrea
Dudley, Sara
author_sort Xu, Huijun
collection PubMed
description For breast cancer patients treated in the prone position with tangential fields, a diamond‐shaped light field (DSLF) can be used to align with corresponding skin markers for image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT). This study evaluates and compares the benefits of different DSLF setups. Seventy‐one patients who underwent daily tangential kilovoltage (kV) IGRT were categorized retrospectively into four groups: (1) DSLF field size (FS) = 10 × 10 cm(2), gantry angle = 90° (right breast)/270° (left breast), with the same isocenter as treatment tangential beams; (2) same as group 1, except DSLF FS = 4 × 4 cm(2); (3) DSLF FS = 4 × 4–6 × 8 cm(2), gantry angle = tangential treatment beam, off‐isocenter so that the DSLF was at the approximate breast center; and (4) No‐DSLF. We compared their total setup time (including any DSLF/marker‐based alignment and IGRT) and relative kV‐based couch shift corrections. For groups 1–3, DSLF‐only dose distributions (excluding kV‐based correction) were simulated by reversely shifting the couch positions from the computed tomography plans, which were assumed equivalent to the delivered dose when both DSLF and IGRT were used. For patient groups 1–4, the average daily setup time was 2.6, 2.5, 5.0, and 8.3 min, respectively. Their mean and standard deviations of daily kV‐based couch shifts were 0.64 ± 0.4, 0.68 ± 0.3, 0.8 ± 0.6, and 1.0 ± 0.6 cm. The average target dose changes after excluding kV‐IGRT for groups 1–3 were−0.2%, −0.1%, and +0.4%, respectively, whereas DSLF‐1 was most efficient in sparing heart and chest wall, DSLF‐2 had lowest lung D (max); and DSLF‐3 maintained the highest target coverage at the cost of highest OAR dose. In general, the use of DSLF greatly reduces patient setup time and may result in smaller IGRT corrections. If IGRT is limited, different DSLF setups yield different target coverage and OAR dose sparing. Our findings will help DSLF setup optimization in the prone breast treatment setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9680565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96805652022-11-23 A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy Xu, Huijun Cheston, Sally B. Gopal, Arun Zhang, Baoshe Chen, Shifeng Yu, Suhong Hall, Andrea Dudley, Sara J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics For breast cancer patients treated in the prone position with tangential fields, a diamond‐shaped light field (DSLF) can be used to align with corresponding skin markers for image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT). This study evaluates and compares the benefits of different DSLF setups. Seventy‐one patients who underwent daily tangential kilovoltage (kV) IGRT were categorized retrospectively into four groups: (1) DSLF field size (FS) = 10 × 10 cm(2), gantry angle = 90° (right breast)/270° (left breast), with the same isocenter as treatment tangential beams; (2) same as group 1, except DSLF FS = 4 × 4 cm(2); (3) DSLF FS = 4 × 4–6 × 8 cm(2), gantry angle = tangential treatment beam, off‐isocenter so that the DSLF was at the approximate breast center; and (4) No‐DSLF. We compared their total setup time (including any DSLF/marker‐based alignment and IGRT) and relative kV‐based couch shift corrections. For groups 1–3, DSLF‐only dose distributions (excluding kV‐based correction) were simulated by reversely shifting the couch positions from the computed tomography plans, which were assumed equivalent to the delivered dose when both DSLF and IGRT were used. For patient groups 1–4, the average daily setup time was 2.6, 2.5, 5.0, and 8.3 min, respectively. Their mean and standard deviations of daily kV‐based couch shifts were 0.64 ± 0.4, 0.68 ± 0.3, 0.8 ± 0.6, and 1.0 ± 0.6 cm. The average target dose changes after excluding kV‐IGRT for groups 1–3 were−0.2%, −0.1%, and +0.4%, respectively, whereas DSLF‐1 was most efficient in sparing heart and chest wall, DSLF‐2 had lowest lung D (max); and DSLF‐3 maintained the highest target coverage at the cost of highest OAR dose. In general, the use of DSLF greatly reduces patient setup time and may result in smaller IGRT corrections. If IGRT is limited, different DSLF setups yield different target coverage and OAR dose sparing. Our findings will help DSLF setup optimization in the prone breast treatment setting. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9680565/ /pubmed/36029043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13772 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Xu, Huijun
Cheston, Sally B.
Gopal, Arun
Zhang, Baoshe
Chen, Shifeng
Yu, Suhong
Hall, Andrea
Dudley, Sara
A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title_full A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title_fullStr A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title_full_unstemmed A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title_short A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
title_sort study of skin marker alignment using different diamond‐shaped light fields for prone breast external‐beam radiation therapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36029043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13772
work_keys_str_mv AT xuhuijun astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT chestonsallyb astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT gopalarun astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT zhangbaoshe astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT chenshifeng astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT yusuhong astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT hallandrea astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT dudleysara astudyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT xuhuijun studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT chestonsallyb studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT gopalarun studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT zhangbaoshe studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT chenshifeng studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT yusuhong studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT hallandrea studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy
AT dudleysara studyofskinmarkeralignmentusingdifferentdiamondshapedlightfieldsforpronebreastexternalbeamradiationtherapy