A comparative study of set up variations and bowel volumes in supine versus prone positions of patients treated with external beam radiation for carcinoma rectum.

PURPOSE

A prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the influence of patient positioning on the set up variations to determine the planning target volume (PTV) margins and to evaluate the clinical relevance volume assessment of the small bowel (SB) within the irradiated volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During the period of months from December 2011 to April 2012, a computed tomography (CT) scan was done either in supine position or in prone position using a belly board (BB) for 20 consecutive patients. All the patients had histologically proven rectal cancer and received either post- or pre-operative pelvic irradiation. Using a three-dimensional planning system, the dose-volume histogram for SB was defined in each axial CT slice. Total dose was 46-50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction), delivered using the 4-field box technique. The set up variation of the study group was assessed from the data received from the electronic portal imaging device in the linear accelerator. The shift along X, Y, and Z directions were noted. Both systematic and random errors were calculated and using both these values the PTV margin was calculated.

RESULTS

The systematic errors of patients treated in the supine position were 0.87 (X-mm), 0.66 (Y-mm), 1.6 (Z-mm) and in the prone position were 1.3 (X-mm), 0.59 (Y-mm), 1.17 (Z-mm). The random errors of patients treated in the supine positions were 1.81 (X-mm), 1.73 (Y-mm), 1.83 (Z-mm) and in prone position were 2.02 (X-mm), 1.21 (Y-mm), 3.05 (Z-mm). The calculated PTV margins in the supine position were 3.45 (X-mm), 2.87 (Y-mm), 5.31 (Z-mm) and in the prone position were 4.91 (X-mm), 2.32 (Y-mm), 5.08 (Z-mm). The mean volume of the peritoneal cavity was 648.65 cm 3 in the prone position and 1197.37 cm 3 in the supine position.

CONCLUSION

The prone position using BB device was more effective in reducing irradiated SB volume in rectal cancer patients. There were no significant variations in the daily set up for patients treated in both supine and prone positions.