Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:44:23.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Set-up verification on a belly-board device using electronic portal imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Sarah Roels ,
Jan Verstraete  and
Karin Haustermans
Sarah Roels
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
Jan Verstraete
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
Karin Haustermans*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
*
Correspondence to: Karin Haustermans, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Tel. +32 16 34 69 00, Fax. +32 16 34 69 01 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose: Quantification of set-up errors is necessary to assess the accuracy of patient positioning and define set-up margins. In this article, we describe the analysis of two different set-up verification and correction procedures in pelvic irradiation for rectal cancer patients treated on a belly-board device.

Methods: First, we conducted a retrospective study in ten patients. Skin marks were used for set-up and the position was verified and corrected at the start of treatment by portal imaging. Second, we analysed the implementation of a more rigorous verification and correction procedure in ten patients. The same set-up procedure was used, but verification was performed during the first three sessions and on a weekly basis thereafter. In both studies, systematic and random errors were linked with possible patient-related, treatment-unit-related and time-related factors.

Results: The pooled data showed a significant reduction in systematic and random error in favour of the second verification procedure (p < 0.05). This resulted in a reduction in the size of the safety margin of more than 3 mm in all directions. Time trends were significant in four patients in the first analysis and in three patients in the second analysis. In six patients in the first and seven patients in the second study, a significant correlation was found between the vertical couch movement and the antero-posterior set-up error. Analysis of patient-related factors demonstrated a relationship between the abdominal contour and rotational errors in both studies.

Conclusion: The results of these set-up analyses show that patient positioning on a belly-board device by laser alignment to skin marks is accurate and reproducible. However, in some patients we recommend the implementation of a fixed vertical couch position. The systematic error should be identified and corrected during the first fractions of treatment. Thereafter, verification should be performed at regular intervals to correct for possible time trends. Positioning of obese patients was found to be more prone to set-up errors and requires online position verification.

Keywords

Set-up verificationbelly-board devicevertical couch position
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 73 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report 62: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). J ICRU 1999; 62.Google Scholar
van, Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14:52–64.Google Scholar
Roels, S, Duthoy, W, Haustermans, K, Penninckx, F, Vandecaveye, V, Boterberg, T, De, Neve W. Definition and delineation of the clinical target volume for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65:1129–1142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijhold, J, van, Herk M, Vijlbrief, R, Lebesque, JV. Fast evaluation of patient set-up during radiotherapy by aligning features in portal and simulator images. Phys Med Biol 1991; 36:1665–1679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijhold, J, Lebesque, JV, Hart, AA, Vijlbrief, RE. Maximizing setup accuracy using portal images as applied to a conformal boost technique for prostatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 1992; 24:261–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remeijer, P, Geerlof, E, Ploeger, L, Gilhuijs, K, van, Herk M, Lebesque, JV. 3-D portal image analysis in clinical practice: an evaluation of 2-D and 3-D analysis techniques as applied to 30 prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46:1281–1290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, D, Wong, J, Vicini, F, Michalski, J, Pan, C, Frazier, A, Horwitz, E, Martinez, A. Adaptive modification of treatment planning to minimize the deleterious effects of treatment setup errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38:197–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinowitz, I, Broomberg, J, Goitein, M, Mc, Carthy K, Leong, J. Accuracy of radiation field alignment in clinical practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11:1857–1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Gayed, AA, Bel, A, Vijlbrief, R, Bartelink, H, Lebesque, JV. Time trend of patient setup deviations during pelvic irradiation using electronic portal imaging. Radiother Oncol 1993; 26:162–171. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van, Herk M, Remeijer, P, Rasch, C, Lebesque, JV. The probability of correct target dosage: Dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47:1121–1135.Google Scholar
Siegel, S, Castellan, NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences (second edition). McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Rudat, V, Flentje, M, Engenhart, R, Metzger, M, Wannenmacher, M. The belly-board technique for the sparing of the small intestine. Studies on positioning accuracy taking into consideration conformational irradiation techniques. Strahlenther Onkol 1995; 171:437–443.Google Scholar
Allal, AS, Bischof, S, Nouet, P. Impact of the ‘belly board’ device on treatment reproducibility in preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2002; 178:259–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olofsen-van, Acht M, van, den Berg H, Quint, S, de, Boer H, Seven, M, van Somsen, de Koste J, Creutzberg, C, Visser, A. Reduction of irradiated small bowel volume and accurate patient positioning by use of a bellyboard device in pelvic radiotherapy of gynecological cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2001; 59:87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurkmans, CW, Remeijer, P, Lebesque, JV, Mijnheer, BJ. Set-up verification using portal imaging; review of current clinical practice. Radiother Oncol 2001; 58:105–120. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Das, IJ, Lanciano, RM, Movsas, B, Kagawa, K, Barnes, SJ. Efficacy of a belly board device with CT-simulation in reducing small bowel volume within pelvic irradiation fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39:67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koelbl, O, Vordermark, D, Flentje, M. The relationship between belly board position and patient anatomy and its influence on dose-volume histogram of small bowel for postoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003; 67: 345–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greer, PB, Mortensen, TM, Rad, DT, Jose, CC. Comparison of two methods for anterior–posterior isocenter localization in pelvic radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41:1193–1199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millender, LE, Aubin, M, Pouliot, J, Shinohara, K, Roach, M 3rd. Daily electronic portal imaging for morbidly obese men undergoing radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59:6–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luchka, K, Shalev, S. Pelvic irradiation of the obese patient: a treatment strategy involving megavoltage simulation and intratreatment setup corrections. Med Phys 1996; 23:1897–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentel, GC, Marks, LB, Sherouse, GW, Spencer, DP, Anscher, MS. The effectiveness of immobilization during prostate irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31:143–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed