We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of megavoltage position verification for prostate irradiation based on bony anatomy and implanted fiducials.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 2003 July
PURPOSE: The patient position during radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer can be verified with the help of portal images acquired during treatment. In this study we quantify the clinical consequences of the use of image-based verification based on the bony anatomy and the prostate target itself.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed 2025 portal images and 23 computed tomography (CT) scans from 23 patients with prostate cancer. In all patients gold markers were implanted prior to CT scanning. Statistical data for both random and systematic errors were calculated for displacements of bones and markers and we investigated the effectiveness of an off-line correction protocol.
RESULTS: Standard deviations for systematic marker displacement are 2.4 mm in the lateral (LR) direction, 4.4 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction and 3.7 mm in the caudal-cranial direction (CC). Application of off-line position verification based on the marker positions results in a shrinkage of the systematic error to well below 1 mm. Position verification based on the bony anatomy reduces the systematic target uncertainty to 50% in the AP direction and in the LR direction. No reduction was observed in the CC direction. For six out of 23 patients we found an increase of the systematic error after application of bony anatomy-based position verification.
CONCLUSIONS: We show that even if correction based on the bony anatomy is applied, considerable margins have to be set to account for organ motion. Our study highlights that for individual patients the systematic error can increase after application of bony anatomy-based position verification, whereas the population standard deviation will decrease. Off-line target-based position verification effectively reduces the systematic error to well below 1 mm, thus enabling significant margin reduction.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed 2025 portal images and 23 computed tomography (CT) scans from 23 patients with prostate cancer. In all patients gold markers were implanted prior to CT scanning. Statistical data for both random and systematic errors were calculated for displacements of bones and markers and we investigated the effectiveness of an off-line correction protocol.
RESULTS: Standard deviations for systematic marker displacement are 2.4 mm in the lateral (LR) direction, 4.4 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction and 3.7 mm in the caudal-cranial direction (CC). Application of off-line position verification based on the marker positions results in a shrinkage of the systematic error to well below 1 mm. Position verification based on the bony anatomy reduces the systematic target uncertainty to 50% in the AP direction and in the LR direction. No reduction was observed in the CC direction. For six out of 23 patients we found an increase of the systematic error after application of bony anatomy-based position verification.
CONCLUSIONS: We show that even if correction based on the bony anatomy is applied, considerable margins have to be set to account for organ motion. Our study highlights that for individual patients the systematic error can increase after application of bony anatomy-based position verification, whereas the population standard deviation will decrease. Off-line target-based position verification effectively reduces the systematic error to well below 1 mm, thus enabling significant margin reduction.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app