Ueda Yoshihiro, Teshima Teruki, Cárdenes Higinia, Das Indra J
Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Chuo-ku, Osaka, Japan.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Jul;18(4):62-68. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12093. Epub 2017 May 14.
The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and efficacy of two commonly used commercial immobilization systems for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and setup accuracy of two immobilization systems: the Elekta Body Frame (EBF) and the Civco Body Pro-Lok (CBP) in 80 patients evenly divided for each system. A cone beam CT (CBCT) was used before each treatment fraction for setup correction in both devices. Analyzed shifts were applied for setup correction and CBCT was repeated. If a large shift (>5 mm) occurred in any direction, an additional CBCT was employed for verification after localization. The efficacy of patient setup was analyzed for 105 sessions (48 with the EBF, 57 with the CBP). Result indicates that the CBCT was repeated at the 1 treatment session in 22.5% and 47.5% of the EBF and CBP cases, respectively. The systematic errors {left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), cranio-caudal (CC), and 3D vector shift: (LR + AP + CC ) (mm)}, were {0.5 ± 3.7, 2.3 ± 2.5, 0.7 ± 3.5, 7.1 ± 3.1} mm and {0.4 ± 3.6, 0.7 ± 4.0, 0.0 ± 5.5, 9.2 ± 4.2} mm, and the random setup errors were {5.1, 3.0, 3.5, 3.9} mm and {4.6, 4.8, 5.4, 5.3} mm for the EBF and the CBP, respectively. The 3D vector shift was significantly larger for the CBP (P < 0.01). The setup time was slightly longer for the EBF (EBF: 15.1 min, CBP: 13.7 min), but the difference was not statistically significant. It is concluded that adequate accuracy in SBRT can be achieved with either system if image guidance is used. However, patient comfort could dictate the use of CBP system with slightly reduced accuracy.
本研究的目的是调查两种常用于肺癌立体定向体部放射治疗(SBRT)的商用固定系统的准确性和有效性。这项回顾性研究评估了两种固定系统的有效性和摆位准确性:Elekta体架(EBF)和Civco体部专业锁定装置(CBP),80例患者被平均分为两组,每组使用一种系统。在每个治疗分次前使用锥形束CT(CBCT)对两种装置进行摆位校正。分析得到的位移用于摆位校正,并重复进行CBCT扫描。如果在任何方向出现较大位移(>5 mm),则在定位后额外进行一次CBCT扫描以进行验证。对105个疗程(48个使用EBF,57个使用CBP)的患者摆位有效性进行了分析。结果表明,在EBF和CBP病例中,分别有22.5%和47.5%的患者在第1个疗程重复进行了CBCT扫描。系统误差{左右(LR)、前后(AP)、头脚(CC)以及三维矢量位移:(LR + AP + CC)(mm)}分别为{0.5±3.7、2.3±2.5、0.7±3.5、7.1±3.1}mm和{0.4±3.6、0.7±4.0、0.0±5.5、9.2±4.2}mm,EBF和CBP的随机摆位误差分别为{5.1、3.0、3.5、3.9}mm和{4.6、4.8、5.4、5.3}mm。CBP的三维矢量位移明显更大(P < 0.01)。EBF的摆位时间略长(EBF:15.1分钟,CBP:13.7分钟),但差异无统计学意义。得出的结论是,如果使用图像引导,两种系统均可在SBRT中实现足够的准确性。然而,患者的舒适度可能决定使用准确性略低的CBP系统。