Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Faster and more accurate patient positioning with surface guided radiotherapy for ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer patients

Mannerberg, Annika LU ; Kügele, Malin LU orcid ; Hamid, Sandra ; Edvardsson, Anneli LU ; Petersson, Kristoffer LU ; Gunnlaugsson, Adalsteinn LU ; Bäck, Sven Å.J. LU ; Engelholm, Silke and Ceberg, Sofie LU (2021) In Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology 19. p.41-45
Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease patient positioning time for localized prostate cancer patients compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup method. The patient setup accuracy was also compared between the two setup methods. Materials and methods: A total of 40 localized prostate cancer patients were enrolled in this study, where 20 patients were positioned with surface imaging (SI) and 20 patients were positioned with 3-point localization. The setup time was obtained from the system log files of the linear accelerator and compared between the two methods. The patient setup was verified with daily orthogonal kV images which were matched based on the... (More)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease patient positioning time for localized prostate cancer patients compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup method. The patient setup accuracy was also compared between the two setup methods. Materials and methods: A total of 40 localized prostate cancer patients were enrolled in this study, where 20 patients were positioned with surface imaging (SI) and 20 patients were positioned with 3-point localization. The setup time was obtained from the system log files of the linear accelerator and compared between the two methods. The patient setup was verified with daily orthogonal kV images which were matched based on the implanted gold fiducial markers. Resulting setup deviations between planned and online positions were compared between SI and 3-point localization. Results: Median setup time was 2:50 min and 3:28 min for SI and 3-point localization, respectively (p < 0.001). The median vector offset was 4.7 mm (range: 0–10.4 mm) for SI and 5.2 mm for 3-point localization (range: 0.41–17.3 mm) (p = 0.01). Median setup deviation in the individual translations for SI and 3-point localization respectively was: 1.1 mm and 1.9 mm in lateral direction (p = 0.02), 1.8 and 1.6 mm in the longitudinal direction (p = 0.41) and 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm in the vertical direction (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using SGRT for positioning of prostate cancer patients provided a faster and more accurate patient positioning compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Patient positioning, Patient setup time, Radiotherapy workflow, Surface guided radiotherapy
in
Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology
volume
19
pages
5 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85110710736
  • pmid:34527818
ISSN
2405-6324
DOI
10.1016/j.tipsro.2021.07.001
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
dc444e05-71f8-4e2f-ad8f-9a3514823561
date added to LUP
2021-09-08 15:08:15
date last changed
2024-06-15 15:58:18
@article{dc444e05-71f8-4e2f-ad8f-9a3514823561,
  abstract     = {{<p>Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease patient positioning time for localized prostate cancer patients compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup method. The patient setup accuracy was also compared between the two setup methods. Materials and methods: A total of 40 localized prostate cancer patients were enrolled in this study, where 20 patients were positioned with surface imaging (SI) and 20 patients were positioned with 3-point localization. The setup time was obtained from the system log files of the linear accelerator and compared between the two methods. The patient setup was verified with daily orthogonal kV images which were matched based on the implanted gold fiducial markers. Resulting setup deviations between planned and online positions were compared between SI and 3-point localization. Results: Median setup time was 2:50 min and 3:28 min for SI and 3-point localization, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). The median vector offset was 4.7 mm (range: 0–10.4 mm) for SI and 5.2 mm for 3-point localization (range: 0.41–17.3 mm) (p = 0.01). Median setup deviation in the individual translations for SI and 3-point localization respectively was: 1.1 mm and 1.9 mm in lateral direction (p = 0.02), 1.8 and 1.6 mm in the longitudinal direction (p = 0.41) and 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm in the vertical direction (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using SGRT for positioning of prostate cancer patients provided a faster and more accurate patient positioning compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup.</p>}},
  author       = {{Mannerberg, Annika and Kügele, Malin and Hamid, Sandra and Edvardsson, Anneli and Petersson, Kristoffer and Gunnlaugsson, Adalsteinn and Bäck, Sven Å.J. and Engelholm, Silke and Ceberg, Sofie}},
  issn         = {{2405-6324}},
  keywords     = {{Patient positioning; Patient setup time; Radiotherapy workflow; Surface guided radiotherapy}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{09}},
  pages        = {{41--45}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology}},
  title        = {{Faster and more accurate patient positioning with surface guided radiotherapy for ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer patients}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2021.07.001}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.tipsro.2021.07.001}},
  volume       = {{19}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}