SU‐E‐J‐29: Evaluation of Effectiveness of Immobilization Devices for Radiation Therapy with Repeated CBCT Studies

Heng Li, L. Zhang, P. Balter, L. Dong, M. Gillin, X. Zhu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different immobilization devices for lung radiation therapy with daily and/or weekly cone‐beam CTs (CBCT). Methods: Three different immobilization devices, short (IM1) and long (Im2) Vac‐lok cushion with wing boards (Civco), BodyFix (Im3, Elekta), were investigated. Repeated CBCT images for 3 SBRT patients immobilized with Im3, and 6 IMRT patients immobilized with IM1 and Im2 (3 each) were acquired. Each SBRT patient received 70 Gy in 10 fractions and setup daily with CBCT, while IM1 and Im2 patients were setup daily with orthogonal kV, and weekly CBCT (week 0–6). The day 1, 6 and 10 CBCT for Im3 were considered week 0–2 CBCT. Patient setup was first based on skins markers then shifts were made based on bony landmarks in kV and GTV with CBCT. Skin contours, which are further away from the isocenter and thus more sensitive to rotation and skin folding, were extracted in each CBCT data set and the difference on skin contours were investigated for both before and after shifts. Results: Over 2 weeks of treatment, Im3 has the smallest standard deviation for setup shifts (0.09, 0.16, 0.20 cm on LR, UD and IO directions) compared to IM1 (0.29, 0.35, 0.34 cm) and Im2 (0.11, 0.19, 0.40 cm), which indicates setup based on skin markers were the most reproducible for Im3. Over 6 weeks of treatment, Im2 (0.16, 0.18, 0.42 cm) is more reproducible than IM1 (0.44, 0.45, 0.35 cm). All 3 patients with IM1 and 2 patients with Im2 were found to have >1 cm difference in skin contour even after shifts were made. 1 patient with IM1 was found to have non‐reproducing skin folding of >3 cm difference. Conclusions: Information derived from repeated CT images could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the immobilization devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Immobilization
Radiotherapy
Equipment and Supplies
Skin
Lung
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐J‐29 : Evaluation of Effectiveness of Immobilization Devices for Radiation Therapy with Repeated CBCT Studies. / Li, Heng; Zhang, L.; Balter, P.; Dong, L.; Gillin, M.; Zhu, X.

In: Medical physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 01.01.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{09c00fb3cbde4a26b29afb4d5019ec41,
title = "SU‐E‐J‐29: Evaluation of Effectiveness of Immobilization Devices for Radiation Therapy with Repeated CBCT Studies",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different immobilization devices for lung radiation therapy with daily and/or weekly cone‐beam CTs (CBCT). Methods: Three different immobilization devices, short (IM1) and long (Im2) Vac‐lok cushion with wing boards (Civco), BodyFix (Im3, Elekta), were investigated. Repeated CBCT images for 3 SBRT patients immobilized with Im3, and 6 IMRT patients immobilized with IM1 and Im2 (3 each) were acquired. Each SBRT patient received 70 Gy in 10 fractions and setup daily with CBCT, while IM1 and Im2 patients were setup daily with orthogonal kV, and weekly CBCT (week 0–6). The day 1, 6 and 10 CBCT for Im3 were considered week 0–2 CBCT. Patient setup was first based on skins markers then shifts were made based on bony landmarks in kV and GTV with CBCT. Skin contours, which are further away from the isocenter and thus more sensitive to rotation and skin folding, were extracted in each CBCT data set and the difference on skin contours were investigated for both before and after shifts. Results: Over 2 weeks of treatment, Im3 has the smallest standard deviation for setup shifts (0.09, 0.16, 0.20 cm on LR, UD and IO directions) compared to IM1 (0.29, 0.35, 0.34 cm) and Im2 (0.11, 0.19, 0.40 cm), which indicates setup based on skin markers were the most reproducible for Im3. Over 6 weeks of treatment, Im2 (0.16, 0.18, 0.42 cm) is more reproducible than IM1 (0.44, 0.45, 0.35 cm). All 3 patients with IM1 and 2 patients with Im2 were found to have >1 cm difference in skin contour even after shifts were made. 1 patient with IM1 was found to have non‐reproducing skin folding of >3 cm difference. Conclusions: Information derived from repeated CT images could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the immobilization devices.",
author = "Heng Li and L. Zhang and P. Balter and L. Dong and M. Gillin and X. Zhu",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4734862",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐J‐29

T2 - Evaluation of Effectiveness of Immobilization Devices for Radiation Therapy with Repeated CBCT Studies

AU - Li, Heng

AU - Zhang, L.

AU - Balter, P.

AU - Dong, L.

AU - Gillin, M.

AU - Zhu, X.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different immobilization devices for lung radiation therapy with daily and/or weekly cone‐beam CTs (CBCT). Methods: Three different immobilization devices, short (IM1) and long (Im2) Vac‐lok cushion with wing boards (Civco), BodyFix (Im3, Elekta), were investigated. Repeated CBCT images for 3 SBRT patients immobilized with Im3, and 6 IMRT patients immobilized with IM1 and Im2 (3 each) were acquired. Each SBRT patient received 70 Gy in 10 fractions and setup daily with CBCT, while IM1 and Im2 patients were setup daily with orthogonal kV, and weekly CBCT (week 0–6). The day 1, 6 and 10 CBCT for Im3 were considered week 0–2 CBCT. Patient setup was first based on skins markers then shifts were made based on bony landmarks in kV and GTV with CBCT. Skin contours, which are further away from the isocenter and thus more sensitive to rotation and skin folding, were extracted in each CBCT data set and the difference on skin contours were investigated for both before and after shifts. Results: Over 2 weeks of treatment, Im3 has the smallest standard deviation for setup shifts (0.09, 0.16, 0.20 cm on LR, UD and IO directions) compared to IM1 (0.29, 0.35, 0.34 cm) and Im2 (0.11, 0.19, 0.40 cm), which indicates setup based on skin markers were the most reproducible for Im3. Over 6 weeks of treatment, Im2 (0.16, 0.18, 0.42 cm) is more reproducible than IM1 (0.44, 0.45, 0.35 cm). All 3 patients with IM1 and 2 patients with Im2 were found to have >1 cm difference in skin contour even after shifts were made. 1 patient with IM1 was found to have non‐reproducing skin folding of >3 cm difference. Conclusions: Information derived from repeated CT images could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the immobilization devices.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different immobilization devices for lung radiation therapy with daily and/or weekly cone‐beam CTs (CBCT). Methods: Three different immobilization devices, short (IM1) and long (Im2) Vac‐lok cushion with wing boards (Civco), BodyFix (Im3, Elekta), were investigated. Repeated CBCT images for 3 SBRT patients immobilized with Im3, and 6 IMRT patients immobilized with IM1 and Im2 (3 each) were acquired. Each SBRT patient received 70 Gy in 10 fractions and setup daily with CBCT, while IM1 and Im2 patients were setup daily with orthogonal kV, and weekly CBCT (week 0–6). The day 1, 6 and 10 CBCT for Im3 were considered week 0–2 CBCT. Patient setup was first based on skins markers then shifts were made based on bony landmarks in kV and GTV with CBCT. Skin contours, which are further away from the isocenter and thus more sensitive to rotation and skin folding, were extracted in each CBCT data set and the difference on skin contours were investigated for both before and after shifts. Results: Over 2 weeks of treatment, Im3 has the smallest standard deviation for setup shifts (0.09, 0.16, 0.20 cm on LR, UD and IO directions) compared to IM1 (0.29, 0.35, 0.34 cm) and Im2 (0.11, 0.19, 0.40 cm), which indicates setup based on skin markers were the most reproducible for Im3. Over 6 weeks of treatment, Im2 (0.16, 0.18, 0.42 cm) is more reproducible than IM1 (0.44, 0.45, 0.35 cm). All 3 patients with IM1 and 2 patients with Im2 were found to have >1 cm difference in skin contour even after shifts were made. 1 patient with IM1 was found to have non‐reproducing skin folding of >3 cm difference. Conclusions: Information derived from repeated CT images could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the immobilization devices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024787778&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024787778&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4734862

DO - 10.1118/1.4734862

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024787778

VL - 39

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -