Search

Abstract: We evaluated adequate setup margins for the radiotherapy (RT) of pelvic tumors based on overall position errors of bony landmarks. We also estimated the difference in setup accuracy between the male and female patients. Finally, we compared the patient rotation for 2 immobilization devices. The study cohort included consecutive 64 male and 64 female patients. Altogether, 1794 orthogonal setup images were analyzed. Observer-related deviation in image matching and the effect of patient rotation were explicitly determined. Overall systematic and random errors were calculated in 3 orthogonal directions. Anisotropic setup margins were evaluated based on residual errors after weekly image guidance. The van Herk formula was used to calculate the margins. Overall, 100 patients were immobilized with a house-made device. The patient rotation was compared against 28 patients immobilized with CIVCO's Kneefix and Feetfix. We found that the usually applied isotropic setup margin of 8mm covered all the uncertainties related to patient setup for most RT treatments of the pelvis. However, margins of even 10.3mm were needed for the female patients with very large pelvic target volumes centered either in the symphysis or in the sacrum containing both of these structures. This was because the effect of rotation (p ≤ 0.02) and the observer variation in image matching (p ≤ 0.04) were significantly larger for the female patients than for the male patients. Even with daily image guidance, the required margins remained larger for the women. Patient rotations were largest about the lateral axes. The difference between the required margins was only 1mm for the 2 immobilization devices. The largest component of overall systematic position error came from patient rotation. This emphasizes the need for rotation correction. Overall, larger position errors and setup margins were observed for the female patients with pelvic cancer than for the male patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To assess the relative effectiveness of five image-guidance (IG) frequencies on reducing patient positioning inaccuracies and setup margins for locally advanced lung cancer patients. Methods and Materials: Daily cone-beam computed tomography data for 100 patients (4,237 scans) were analyzed. Subsequently, four less-than-daily IG protocols were simulated using these data (no IG, first 5-day IG, weekly IG, and alternate-day IG). The frequency and magnitude of residual setup error were determined. The less-than-daily IG protocols were compared against the daily IG, the assumed reference standard. Finally, the population-based setup margins were calculated. Results: With the less-than-daily IG protocols, 20–43% of fractions incurred residual setup errors ≥5 mm; daily IG reduced this to 6%. With the exception of the first 5-day IG, reductions in systematic error (∑) occurred as the imaging frequency increased and only daily IG provided notable random error (σ) reductions (∑ = 1.5–2.2 mm, σ = 2.5–3.7 mm; ∑ = 1.8–2.6 mm, σ = 2.5–3.7 mm; and ∑ = 0.7–1.0 mm, σ = 1.7–2.0 mm for no IG, first 5-day IG, and daily IG, respectively. An overall significant difference in the mean setup error was present between the first 5-day IG and daily IG (p < .0001). The derived setup margins were 5–9 mm for less-than-daily IG and were 3–4 mm with daily IG. Conclusion: Daily cone-beam computed tomography substantially reduced the setup error and could permit setup margin reduction and lead to a reduction in normal tissue toxicity for patients undergoing conventionally fractionated lung radiotherapy. Using first 5-day cone-beam computed tomography was suboptimal for lung patients, given the inability to reduce the random error and the potential for the systematic error to increase throughout the treatment course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]