Topolnjak Rajko, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Corine, Sonke Jan-Jakob, Minkema Danny, Remeijer Peter, Nijkamp Jasper, Elkhuizen Paula, Rasch Coen
Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Huis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 1;72(3):941-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1924. Epub 2008 Aug 26.
To quantify the interfraction position variability of the excision cavity (EC) and to compare the rib and breast surface as surrogates for the cavity. Additionally, we sought to determine the required margin for on-line, off-line and no correction protocols in external beam radiotherapy.
A total of 20 patients were studied who had been treated in the supine position for 28 daily fractions. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were regularly acquired according to a shrinking action level setup correction protocol based on bony anatomy registration of the ribs and sternum. The position of the excision area was retrospectively analyzed by gray value cone-beam computed tomography-to-computed tomography registration. Subsequently, three setup correction strategies (on-line, off-line, and no corrections) were applied, according to the rib and breast surface registrations, to estimate the residual setup errors (systematic [Sigma] and random [sigma]) of the excision area. The required margins were calculated using a margin recipe.
The image quality of the cone-beam computed tomography scans was sufficient for localization of the EC. The margins required for the investigated setup correction protocols and the setup errors for the left-right, craniocaudal and anteroposterior directions were 8.3 mm (Sigma = 3.0, sigma = 2.6), 10.6 mm (Sigma = 3.8, sigma = 3.2), and 7.7 mm (Sigma = 2.7, sigma = 2.9) for the no correction strategy; 5.6 mm (Sigma = 2.0, Sigma = 1.8), 6.5 mm (Sigma = 2.3, sigma = 2.3), and 4.5 mm (Sigma = 1.5, sigma = 1.9) for the on-line rib strategy; and 5.1 mm (Sigma = 1.8, sigma = 1.7), 4.8 mm (Sigma = 1.7, sigma = 1.6), and 3.3 mm (Sigma = 1.1, sigma = 1.6) for the on-line surface strategy, respectively.
Considerable geometric uncertainties in the position of the EC relative to the bony anatomy and breast surface have been observed. By using registration of the breast surface, instead of the rib, the uncertainties in the position of the EC area were reduced.
量化切除腔(EC)的分次间位置变异性,并比较肋骨和乳房表面作为腔的替代物。此外,我们试图确定在体外放射治疗中在线、离线和无校正方案所需的边界。
共研究了20例仰卧位接受28次每日分次治疗的患者。根据基于肋骨和胸骨的骨解剖配准的收缩动作水平设置校正方案,定期采集锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)。通过灰度值CBCT到计算机断层扫描配准,对切除区域的位置进行回顾性分析。随后,根据肋骨和乳房表面配准,应用三种设置校正策略(在线、离线和无校正),以估计切除区域的残余设置误差(系统误差[Sigma]和随机误差[sigma])。使用边界公式计算所需边界。
CBCT扫描的图像质量足以定位EC。对于无校正策略,研究的设置校正方案所需的边界以及左右、头脚和前后方向的设置误差分别为8.3mm(Sigma = 3.0,sigma = 2.6)、10.6mm(Sigma = 3.8,sigma = 3.2)和7.7mm(Sigma = 2.7,sigma = 2.9);对于在线肋骨策略,分别为5.6mm(Sigma = 2.0,sigma = 1.8)、6.5mm(Sigma = 2.3,sigma = 2.3)和4.5mm(Sigma = 1.5,sigma = 1.9);对于在线表面策略,分别为5.1mm(Sigma = 1.8,sigma = 1.7)、4.8mm(Sigma = 1.7,sigma = 1.6)和3.3mm(Sigma = 1.1,sigma = 1.6)。
已观察到EC相对于骨解剖和乳房表面位置存在相当大的几何不确定性。通过使用乳房表面配准而非肋骨配准,可减少EC区域位置的不确定性。