Suppr超能文献

放射治疗期间用于患者头部固定的塑料面罩与Orfit面罩的比较:精度与成本

Comparison of plastic and Orfit masks for patient head fixation during radiotherapy: precision and costs.

作者信息

Weltens C, Kesteloot K, Vandevelde G, Van den Bogaert W

机构信息

Radiotherapy Department, UZ Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Sep 30;33(2):499-507. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(95)00178-2.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Two widely used immobilization systems for head fixation during radiotherapy treatment for ear-nose-throat (ENT) tumors are evaluated.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Masks made of poly vinyl-chloride (plastic) are compared to thermoplastic masks (Orfit) with respect to the accuracy of the treatment setup and the costs. For both types of material, a cut-out (windows corresponding to treatment fields) and a full mask (not cut out) are considered. Forty-three patients treated for ENT tumors were randomized into four groups, to be fixed by one of the following modalities: cut-out plastic mask (12 patients), full plastic mask (11 patients), cut-out Orfit mask (10 patients), and full Orfit mask (10 patients).

RESULTS

Reproducibility of the treatment setup was assessed by calculating the deviations from the mean value for each individual patient and was demonstrated to be identical for all subgroups: no differences were demonstrated between the plastic (s = 2.1 mm) and the Orfit (s = 2.1 mm) group nor between the cut-out (s = 2.0 mm) and not cut-out (s = 2.1 mm) group. The transfer chain from similar to treatment unit was checked by comparing portal images to their respective simulation image, and no differences between the four subgroups (s = +/- 3.5 mm) could be detected. A methodology was described to compare the costs of both types of masks, and illustrated with the data for a department. It was found that Orfit masks are a cheaper alternative than plastic masks; they require much less investment expenses and the workload and material cost of the first mask for each patient is also lower. Cut-out masks are more expensive than full masks, because of the higher workload and the additional material required for second and third masks that are required in case of field modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

No substantial difference in patient setup accuracy between both types of masks was detected, and cutting out the masks had no impact on the fixing capabilities. A first Orfit mask will typically be a cheaper alternative than a plastic mask for most departments (lower fixed and variable costs). The higher material cost of the subsequent Orfit masks, compared to the plastic masks, offset the lower investment expenses.

摘要

目的

评估两种在耳鼻喉(ENT)肿瘤放射治疗期间广泛使用的头部固定系统。

方法和材料

将由聚氯乙烯(塑料)制成的面罩与热塑性面罩(Orfit)在治疗设置的准确性和成本方面进行比较。对于这两种材料类型,均考虑有切口的(对应于治疗野的窗口)和完整面罩(无切口)。43例接受ENT肿瘤治疗的患者被随机分为四组,采用以下方式之一进行固定:有切口的塑料面罩(12例患者)、完整塑料面罩(11例患者)、有切口的Orfit面罩(10例患者)和完整Orfit面罩(10例患者)。

结果

通过计算每个患者与平均值的偏差来评估治疗设置的可重复性,结果表明所有亚组的可重复性相同:塑料面罩组(标准差(s = 2.1)毫米)和Orfit面罩组(标准差(s = 2.1)毫米)之间以及有切口组(标准差(s = 2.0)毫米)和无切口组(标准差(s = 2.1)毫米)之间均未显示出差异。通过将射野图像与其各自的模拟图像进行比较,检查了从模拟到治疗单元的传输链,四个亚组之间未检测到差异(标准差(s = \pm 3.5)毫米)。描述了一种比较两种面罩成本的方法,并以一个科室的数据进行了说明。结果发现,Orfit面罩是比塑料面罩更便宜的选择;它们所需的投资费用少得多,并且每位患者第一个面罩的工作量和材料成本也更低。有切口的面罩比完整面罩更昂贵,这是因为工作量更大,并且在野修改时需要额外的第二个和第三个面罩材料。

结论

未检测到两种面罩在患者设置准确性方面有实质性差异,并且对面罩进行切口对固定能力没有影响。对于大多数科室而言,第一个Orfit面罩通常是比塑料面罩更便宜的选择(固定成本和可变成本更低)。与塑料面罩相比,后续Orfit面罩较高的材料成本抵消了较低的投资费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验