4.7 Article

X-ray-assisted positioning of patients treated by conformal arc radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Comparison of setup accuracy using implanted markers versus bony structures

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.041

关键词

prostate cancer; implanted markers; conformal radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare setup accuracy of NovalisBody stereoscopic X-ray positioning using implanted markers in the prostate vs. bony structures in patients treated with dynamic conformal arc radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Random and systematic setup errors (RE and SE) of the isocenter with regard to the center of gravity of three fiducial markers were measured by means of orthogonal verification films in 120 treatment sessions in 12 patients. Positioning was performed using NovalisBody semiautomated marker fusion. The results were compared with a control group of 261 measurements in 15 patients who were positioned with NovalisBody automated bone fusion. In addition, interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion was registered in the patients with implanted markers. Results: Marker-based X-ray positioning resulted in a reduction of RE as well as SE in the anteroposterior, craniocaudal, and left-right directions compared with those in the control group. The interfraction prostate displacements with regard to the bony pelvis that could be avoided by marker positioning ranged between 1.6 and 2.8 mm for RE and between 1.3 and 4.3 mm for SE. Intrafraction random and systematic prostate movements ranged between 1.4 and 2.4 mm and between 0.8 and 1.3 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The problem of interfraction prostate motion can be solved by using implanted markers. In addition, the NovalisBody X-ray system performs more accurately with markers compared with bone fusion. Intrafraction organ motion has become the limiting factor for margin reduction around the clinical target volume. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据