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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |