Surface imaging, laser positioning or volumetric imaging for breast cancer with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy.
A surface imaging system, Catalyst (C-Rad), was compared with laser-based positioning and daily mega voltage computed tomography (MVCT) setup for breast patients with nodal involvement treated by helical TomoTherapy. Catalyst-based positioning performed better than laser-based positioning. The respective modalities resulted in a standard deviation (SD), 68% confidence interval (CI) of positioning of left-right, craniocaudal, anterior-posterior, roll: 2.4 mm, 2.7 mm, 2.4 mm, 0.9° for Catalyst positioning, and 6.1 mm, 3.8 mm, 4.9 mm, 1.1° for laser-based positioning, respectively. MVCT-based precision is a combination of the interoperator variability for MVCT fusion and the patient movement during the time it takes for MVCT and fusion. The MVCT fusion interoperator variability for breast patients was evaluated at one SD left-right, craniocaudal, ant-post, roll as: 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.0°. There was no statistically significant difference between the automatic MVCT registration result and the manual adjustment; the automatic fusion results were within the 95% CI of the mean result of 10 users, except for one specific case where the patient was positioned with large yaw. We found that users add variability to the roll correction as the automatic registration was more consistent. The patient position uncertainty confidence interval was evaluated as 1.9 mm, 2.2 mm, 1.6 mm, 0.9° after 4 min, and 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.2 mm, 1° after 10 min. The combination of this patient movement with MVCT fusion interoperator variability results in total standard deviations of patient posi-tion when treatment starts 4 or 10 min after initial positioning of, respectively: 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.3° and 2.7 mm, 3.3 mm, 2.6 mm, 1.4°. Surface based positioning arrives at the same precision when taking into account the time required for MVCT imaging and fusion. These results can be used on a patient-per-patient basis to decide which positioning system performs the best after the first 5 fractions and when daily MVCT can be omitted. Ideally, real-time monitoring is required to reduce important intrafraction movement.
Centre Oscar Lambret and Université Lille. F-Crop@O-Lambret.fr.
Frederik
F
Crop
David
D
Pasquier
Amandine
A
Baczkiewic
Julie
J
Doré
Lena
L
Bequet
Emeline
E
Steux
Anne
A
Gadroy
Jacqueline
J
Bouillon
Clement
C
Florence
Laurence
L
Muszynski
Mathilde
M
Lacour
Eric
E
Lartigau
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D007834:Lasers; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000528:radiation effects*; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D009068:Movement; D056888:Patient Positioning / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal; D036542:Tomography, Spiral Computed / Q000379:methods*
Strahlenther Onkol. 2013 Nov;189(11):938-44
24068172
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015 May 08;16(3):4836
26103471
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 15;73(4):1243-51
19251096
Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):5945-60
22047359
Med Phys. 2011 Jun;38(6):3013-24
21815375
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Nov 08;15(6):4957
25493520
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Apr-Jun;2(2):97-105
24674085
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 May 1;65(1):284-90
16618583
Med Phys. 2005 Jun;32(6):1630-9
16013722
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Sep 08;15(5):4921
25207578
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jan;90(1):99-105
18977546
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Feb 27;11:29
26919837
Strahlenther Onkol. 2012 Dec;188(12):1080-4
23138774
Med Phys. 2010 Sep;37(9):4817-53
20964201
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 15;70(4):1239-46
18207662
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 15;64(4):1265-74
16504764
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Apr 1;70(5):1579-87
18234438
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Oct;93(1):71-9
19682758
Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6Part6):3666
28517563
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jan-Mar;3(1):16-25
24674259