Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cancer Radiother ; 28(3): 229-235, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38871604

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to assess inter- and intrafraction errors for two patient immobilisation devices in the context of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy: a vacuum cushion and a simple arm support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients who were treated with lung stereotactic body radiation therapy in supine position with arms above their head were included in the study. Ten patients were setup in a vacuum cushion (Bluebag™, Elekta) and ten other patients with a simple arm support (Posirest™, Civco). A pretreatment four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography and a post-treatment three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography were acquired to compare positioning and immobilisation accuracy. Based on a rigid registration with the planning computed tomography on the spine at the target level, translational and rotational errors were reported. RESULTS: The median number of fractions per treatment was 5 (range: 3-10). Mean interfraction errors based on 112 four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies were similar for both setups with deviations less than or equal to 1.3mm in lateral and vertical direction and 1.2° in roll and yaw. For longitudinal translational errors, mean interfraction errors were 0.7mm with vacuum cushion and -3.9mm with arm support. Based on 111 three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies, mean lateral, longitudinal and vertical intrafraction errors were -0.1mm, -0.2mm and 0.0mm respectively (SD: 1.0, 1.2 and 1.0mm respectively) for the patients setup with vacuum cushion, and mean vertical, longitudinal and lateral intrafraction errors were -0.3mm, -0.7mm and 0.1mm respectively (SD: 2.3, 1.8 and 1.4mm respectively) for the patients setup with arm support. Intrafraction errors means were not statistically different between both positions but standard deviations were statistically larger with arm support. CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed similar inter and intrafraction mean deviations between both positioning but a large variability in intrafraction observed with arm support suggested a more accurate immobilization with vacuum cushion.


Subject(s)
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , Immobilization , Lung Neoplasms , Patient Positioning , Radiosurgery , Humans , Radiosurgery/methods , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Immobilization/methods , Immobilization/instrumentation , Prospective Studies , Aged , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/methods , Aged, 80 and over , Radiotherapy Setup Errors/prevention & control , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Supine Position , Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography/methods , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Vacuum
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL