Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of a six-degrees-of freedom (6D) correction using ExacTrac robotics system in patients with head-and-neck (HN) cancer receiving radiation therapy.Methods: Local setup accuracy was analyzed for 12 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient position was imaged daily upon two different protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac (ET) images correction. Setup data from either approach were compared in terms of both residual errors after correction and punctual displacement of selected regions of interest (Mandible, C2, and C6 vertebral bodies).Results: On average, both protocols achieved reasonably low residual errors after initial correction. The observed differences in shift vectors between the two protocols showed that CBCT tends to weight more C2 and C6 at the expense of the mandible, while ET tends to average more differences among the different ROIs.Conclusions: CBCT, even without 6D correction capabilities, seems preferable to ET for better consistent alignment and the capability to see soft tissues. Therefore, in our experience, CBCT represents a benchmark for positioning head and neck cancer patients. (C) 2013 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Is ExacTrac x-ray system an alternative to CBCT for positioning patients with head and neck cancers?

Simeon, Vittorio
Formal Analysis
;
2013

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of a six-degrees-of freedom (6D) correction using ExacTrac robotics system in patients with head-and-neck (HN) cancer receiving radiation therapy.Methods: Local setup accuracy was analyzed for 12 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient position was imaged daily upon two different protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac (ET) images correction. Setup data from either approach were compared in terms of both residual errors after correction and punctual displacement of selected regions of interest (Mandible, C2, and C6 vertebral bodies).Results: On average, both protocols achieved reasonably low residual errors after initial correction. The observed differences in shift vectors between the two protocols showed that CBCT tends to weight more C2 and C6 at the expense of the mandible, while ET tends to average more differences among the different ROIs.Conclusions: CBCT, even without 6D correction capabilities, seems preferable to ET for better consistent alignment and the capability to see soft tissues. Therefore, in our experience, CBCT represents a benchmark for positioning head and neck cancer patients. (C) 2013 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11591/486761
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact