Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:11:28.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of set-up discrepancies using daily portal imaging during radiotherapy treatment for patients with spine and bone metastases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

L. Young  and
C.M. Blyth
L. Young*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy Department, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
C.M. Blyth*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK
*
Correspondence to: L. Young, Senior Practitioner, Radiotherapy Department, Level 2, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Correspondence to: L. Young, Senior Practitioner, Radiotherapy Department, Level 2, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well established that patients with bone metastases get good pain relief from radiotherapy. The aim of treatment is to achieve maximum pain relief with minimum morbidity. Accuracy and reproducibility of the patient’s position are fundamental to the successful delivery of radiation therapy. It has been recognised for many years, that the accuracy of patient positioning will improve the success of radiation treatment. A previous study carried out in the department showed that the use of only a single tattoo for the set-up of palliative patients resulted in poor accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess if the addition of extra skin marks improved the set-up accuracy of palliative patients being treated for spine and bone metastases. A protocol was implemented detailing the extra skin marks to be used. Daily portal images were acquired and analysed retrospectively using anatomy matching. The results obtained were then compared with those of the previous study. The use of extra skin marks resulted in a total of 45% of images within 5 mm tolerance compared with 36% of images in patients treated with a single centre tattoo. Also, the number of images with deviations greater than 15 mm was reduced by more than 50% with the addition of extra skin marks. This study has shown that extra skin marks do increase the set-up accuracy in palliative patients treated for spine and bone metastases. Therefore, the practice of using extra skin marks has become standard protocol for all palliative patients within the department.

Keywords

Metastasesportal imagingpalliative radiotherapyset-up accuracy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 209 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Chow, E, Danjoux, C, Wong, R, Szumacher, E, Franssen, E, Fung, K, Finkelstein, J, Andersson, L, Connolly, R. Palliation of bone metastases: a survey of patterns of practice among Canadian radiation oncologists. Radiother Oncol 2000; 56: 305–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sztankay, A. Radiation therapy for palliation of cancer-related chronic pain. MEMO 2009; 2: 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, D, Gillick, L, Hendrickson, FR. The palliation of symptomatic osseous metastases: final results of the Study by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cancer 1982; 50: 893–899.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneebone, A, Gebski, V, Hogendoorn, N, Turner, S. A randomized trial evaluating rigid immobilization for pelvic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 1105–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, JE, Haus, AG, Sutton, HG, Griem, ML. The value of frequent treatment verification films in reducing localization error in the irradiation of complex fields. Cancer 1976; 37: 2755–2761.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutreix, A. When and how can we improve precision in radiotherapy? Radiother Oncol 1984; 2: 275–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valicenti, RK, Michalski, JM, Bosch, WR, Gerber, R, Graham, MV, Cheng, A, Purdy, JA, Perez, CA. Is weekly port filming adequate for verifying patient position in modern radiation therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 30: 431–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, P. Portal Imaging Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Semin Radiat Oncol 1995; 5: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neve, W, Van den Heuvel, F, Coghe, M, Verellen, D, De Beukeleer, M, Roelstraete, A, De Roover, P, Thon, L, Storme, G. Interactive use of on-line portal imaging in pelvic radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25: 517–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, TL, Banks, DA, Kagan, AR. Radiation therapy port films: a quality assurance study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42: 223–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easton, D, Vavda, A, Cops, F, Goodridge, C, Leon, G, Scott, S. A quantitative portal imaging assessment of set-up discrepancies during radiation therapy for spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60(Suppl 1):562–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denham, IW, Daily, MJ, Hunter, JW, Fahey, PP, Hamilton, CS. Objective decision making following a portal film: the results of a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 26: 869–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bissett, R, Boyko, S, Leszczynski, K, Cosby, S, Dunscombe, P, Lightfoot, N. Radiotherapy portal verification: an observer study. Br J Radiol 1995; 68: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bissett, R, Leszczynski, K, Loose, S, Boyko, S, Dunscombe, P. Quantitative vs. subjective portal verification using digital portal images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34: 489–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Royal College of Radiologists, Society and College of Radiographers, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. On target: ensuring geometric accuracy in radiotherapy. London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2008.Google Scholar
Samson, MJ, van Sörnsen de Koste, JR, de Boer, HC, Tankink, H, Verstraate, M, Essers, M, Visser, AG, Senan, S. An analysis of anatomic landmark mobility and setup deviations in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 827–832.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
Creutzberg, CL, Althof, VG, de Hoog, MD, Visser, AG, Huizenga, H, Wijnmaalen, A, Levendag, PC. A quality control study of the accuracy of patient positioning in irradiation of pelvic fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34: 697–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creutzberg, CL, Althof, VG, Huizenga, H, Visser, AG, Levendag, PC. Quality assurance using portal imaging: the accuracy of patient positioning in irradiation of breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25: 529–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lirette, A, Pouliot, J, Aubin, M, Larochelle, M. The role of electronic portal imaging in tangential breast irradiation: a prospective study. Radiother Oncol 1995; 37: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fein, DA, McGee, KP, Schultheiss, TE, Fowble, BL, Hanks, GE. Intra- and interfractional reproducibility of tangential breast fields: a prospective on-line portal imaging study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34: 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huizenga, H, Levendag, PC, De Porre, PM, Visser, AG. Accuracy in radiation field alignment in head and neck cancer: a prospective study. Radiother Oncol 1988; 11: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, SA, Galvin, JM, Goldwein, JW, Smith, AR, Blitzer, PH. Improved methods for determination of variability in patient positioning for radiation therapy using simulation and serial portal film measurements. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 23: 621–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinowitz, I, Broomberg, J, Goitein, M, McCarthy, K, Leong, J. Accuracy of radiation field alignment in clinical practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 1857–1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byhardt, RW, Cox, JD, Hornburg, A, Liermann, G. Weekly localization films and detection of field placement errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1978; 4: 881–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildersleve, J, Dearnaley, DP, Evans, PM, Swindell, W. Reproducibility of patient positioning during routine radiotherapy, as assessed by an integrated megavoltage imaging system. Radiother Oncol 1995; 35: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalski, JM, Graham, MV, Bosch, WR, Wong, J, Gerber, RL, Cheng, A, Tinger, A, Valicenti, RK. Prospective clinical evaluation of an electronic portal imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34: 943–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed