MENU ▼
Read by QxMD icon Read
search
OPEN IN READ APP
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Breast patient setup error assessment: comparison of electronic portal image devices and cone-beam computed tomography matching results

Rajko Topolnjak, Jan-Jakob Sonke, Jasper Nijkamp, Coen Rasch, Danny Minkema, Peter Remeijer, Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2010 November 15, 78 (4): 1235-43
20472368

PURPOSE: To quantify the differences in setup errors measured with the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and electronic portal image devices (EPID) in breast cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Repeat CBCT scan were acquired for routine offline setup verification in 20 breast cancer patients. During the CBCT imaging fractions, EPID images of the treatment beams were recorded. Registrations of the bony anatomy for CBCT to planning CT and EPID to digitally reconstructed-radiographs (DRRs) were compared. In addition, similar measurements of an anthropomorphic thorax phantom were acquired. Bland-Altman and linear regression analysis were performed for clinical and phantom registrations. Systematic and random setup errors were quantified for CBCT and EPID-driven correction protocols in the EPID coordinate system (U, V), with V parallel to the cranial-caudal axis and U perpendicular to V and the central beam axis.

RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis of clinical EPID and CBCT registrations yielded 4 to 6-mm limits of agreement, indicating that both methods were not compatible. The EPID-based setup errors were smaller than the CBCT-based setup errors. Phantom measurements showed that CBCT accurately measures setup error whereas EPID underestimates setup errors in the cranial-caudal direction. In the clinical measurements, the residual bony anatomy setup errors after offline CBCT-based corrections were Σ(U) = 1.4 mm, Σ(V) = 1.7 mm, and σ(U) = 2.6 mm, σ(V) = 3.1 mm. Residual setup errors of EPID driven corrections corrected for underestimation were estimated at Σ(U) = 2.2mm, Σ(V) = 3.3 mm, and σ(U) = 2.9 mm, σ(V) = 2.9 mm.

CONCLUSION: EPID registration underestimated the actual bony anatomy setup error in breast cancer patients by 20% to 50%. Using CBCT decreased setup uncertainties significantly.

Comments

You need to log in or sign up for an account to be able to comment.

No comments yet, be the first to post one!

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
20472368
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"