Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024
Comparing immobilisation devices in gynaecological external beam radiotherapy: improving inter-fraction reproducibility of pelvic tilt.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prasad Shimon, Bell Linda J, Zwan Benjamin, Ko Florence, Blackwell Tayla, Connell Kevin, Stanton Cameron, Shepherd Meegan, Atyeo John, Stevens Mark, Morgia Marita
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim was to determine which immobilisation device improved inter-fraction reproducibly of pelvic tilt and required the least pre-treatment setup and planning interventions.
METHODS: Sixteen patients were retrospectively reviewed, eight immobilised using the BodyFIX system (BodyFIX®, Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and eight using the Butterfly Board (BB) (Bionix Radiation Therapy, Toledo, OH, USA). The daily pre-treatment images were reviewed to assess setup variations between each patient and groups for pelvic tilt, pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and the fifth lumbar spine (L5).
RESULTS: Compared with the planning CT, pelvic tilt for most patients was within ±2° using the BodyFIX and ± 4° for the BB. The Butterfly Board had a slightly higher variance both for patient-to-patient (standard deviation of the systematic error) and day-to-day error (standard deviation of the random error). Variance in position between individual patients and the two stabilisation devices were minimal in the anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction for the pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and L5 spine. Re-imaged fractions due to pelvic tilt reduced by about half when BodyFIX was used (39.1% BB, 19.4% BodyFIX). One patient treated with the BB required a re-scan for pelvic tilt. Three patients required a re-scan for body contour variations (two using BodyFIX and one with the BB).
CONCLUSIONS: BodyFIX resulted in a more accurate inter-fraction setup and efficient treatment and is used as the standard stabilisation for gynaecological patients at our centre. It reduced the pelvic tilt variance and reduced the need for re-imaging pre-treatment by half.
METHODS: Sixteen patients were retrospectively reviewed, eight immobilised using the BodyFIX system (BodyFIX®, Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and eight using the Butterfly Board (BB) (Bionix Radiation Therapy, Toledo, OH, USA). The daily pre-treatment images were reviewed to assess setup variations between each patient and groups for pelvic tilt, pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and the fifth lumbar spine (L5).
RESULTS: Compared with the planning CT, pelvic tilt for most patients was within ±2° using the BodyFIX and ± 4° for the BB. The Butterfly Board had a slightly higher variance both for patient-to-patient (standard deviation of the systematic error) and day-to-day error (standard deviation of the random error). Variance in position between individual patients and the two stabilisation devices were minimal in the anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction for the pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and L5 spine. Re-imaged fractions due to pelvic tilt reduced by about half when BodyFIX was used (39.1% BB, 19.4% BodyFIX). One patient treated with the BB required a re-scan for pelvic tilt. Three patients required a re-scan for body contour variations (two using BodyFIX and one with the BB).
CONCLUSIONS: BodyFIX resulted in a more accurate inter-fraction setup and efficient treatment and is used as the standard stabilisation for gynaecological patients at our centre. It reduced the pelvic tilt variance and reduced the need for re-imaging pre-treatment by half.