This study aimed to quantify the difference in setup margin in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) setup imaging, utilising the van Herk formula for two different image registration methods. Two alternative techniques of registration, bony landmark (BL) matching and soft tissue matching (ST) for head and neck cancer patients, were investigated.

This study included 30 head and neck cancer patients who received a simultaneous integrated boost of 54–60–66 Gy in 30 fractions, using volumetric modulated arc treatment. A total of 867 CBCT images were acquired during patient setup and further analysed for setup margin calculation. A region of interest was described using a clip box between the reference and CBCT image to calculate the patient’s positional inaccuracy in three translational directions, X, Y and Z, where X was mediolateral, Y was the cranial-caudal, and Z was the anterior-posterior direction in the patient-based coordinate system, respectively. The shifts were captured by altering the BL and ST matching, and the setup margin was calculated using the van Herk formula (=2·5Σ + 0·7σ where Σ was the systematic and σ was the random error).

The difference between bony and ST matching in most cases was observed to be 1·4 mm in all translational directions at a 95% confidence interval and <1° in all rotational directions. The rotational error was found to be below the action level (±3°); hence, no corrections related to rotational error were made. The translational setup margin for bone and ST-based registration was X (BL) = 4·6 mm, X (ST) = 4·4 mm, Y (BL) = 6·3 mm, Y (ST) = 4·7 mm, Z (BL) = 3·0 mm, Z (ST) = 3·6mm.

Two distinct registration approaches for head-neck patient setup did not yield any significant difference in the setup margin calculation. A suitable approach for CBCT and reference CT registration technique was required for the setup margin calculation. Confusion in selecting the correct image registration procedure can result in incorrect treatment execution. The compatibility of the two registration approaches was established in this study. Image fusion was neutralised before the second match (ST) to avoid hysteresis. For setup verification using CBCT for the head and neck region, both bone and ST registration were compatible for setup verification.

The intent of the review was to identify different methodological approaches used to calculate the planning target volume (PTV) margin for head and neck patients treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and whether the necessary factors to calculate the margin size with the selected formula were used.

A comprehensive, systematic search of related studies was done using the Hydi search engine and different databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest (Nursing and Allied Health), Scopus, ScienceDirect and tipsRO. The literature search included studies published between January 2007 and December 2020. Eligibility screening was performed by two reviewers.

A total of seven studies were found. All the reviewed studies used the Van Herk formula to measure the PTV margin. None of the studies incorporated the systematic errors of target volume delineation in the PTV equation. Inter-fraction translational errors were assessed in all the studies, whilst intra-fraction errors were only included in the margin equation for two studies. The studies showed great heterogeneity in the key characteristics, aims and methods.

Since systemic errors from target volume delineation were not considered and not all studies assess intra-fraction errors, PTV margins may be underestimated. The recommendations are that studies need to determine the effect of target volume variance on PTV margins. It is also recommended to compare PTV margin results using various formulas.

Although manual adjustment of automatic cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) matching may improve the target coverage in certain points of interest, concerns exist that this may lead to dosimetric uncertainties which would negate the theoretical benefit of this approach. The objective of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric impact of manual adjustments made after automatic bony registration on CBCT in prostate patients.

A total of 50 CBCT datasets of ten high-risk prostate cancer patients were randomly chosen. Each CBCT dataset was registered three times. Method (A): Automatic registration, Method (M1): Manual adjustment carried out by two experienced radiation therapists, Method (M2): Manual adjustment carried out by different radiation therapists with varying levels of experience. The clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), the bladder and the rectum were subsequently contoured on each CBCT dataset by a radiation oncologist blinded to the registration methods. The absolute difference of various dosimetric parameters were then analysed and compared with the original planning doses. A comparison of the three matching methods employed was also carried out.

There was a statistically significant difference in the magnitude of move taken in the inferior superior direction between M1 and M2 method. There were no significant differences observed in any of the dosimetric parameters examined in relation to the rectum, bladder or CTV. The only significant difference observed was the volume of PTV covered by the prescription isodose (95%) which was statistically significant lower in method A compared with both M1 and M2. There was no difference observed between M1 and M2 methods. The mean duration of the automated registration and subsequent analysis was 64 seconds compared with 91 seconds for automated registrations which included the additional manual adjustment.

CBCT-based manual adjustments of automated bony-based registrations during the image-guided radiotherapy verification of prostate cancer patients can improve PTV coverage without impacting negatively on the doses received by the organs at risk. This strategy is associated with a small increase in overall treatment time.

The use of bowel preparation strategies to reduce the degree of rectal distension during prostate radiotherapy is well documented. This retrospective pilot study analysed and compared a probiotic agent against a psyllium-supplemented diet to establish the feasibility of probiotics as a bowel preparation for patients receiving radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

A retrospective chart review of five patients taking probiotics and five taking psyllium husk (psyllium) during their course of radiotherapy treatment was conducted. On treatment, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were compared with planning CTs to quantify inter-fractional variation in rectal volume and distension.

Forty-five CBCT scans were available in both the psyllium and probiotics groups for analysis. Variation in mean difference in rectal volume from planning (ΔRV), mean rectal cross-section area (CSA) and mean relative cross-section area (CSArel) was significantly increased for the probiotics group compared with the psyllium group (p=0·001, 0·008 and 0·007, respectively). No statistically significant differences in mean ΔRV, CSA and CSArel were detected between the two groups.

This retrospective analysis suggests that a probiotics-based bowel preparation that utilises Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium lactis may result in increased rectal volume and CSA variation throughout treatment in comparison with a psyllium-supplemented diet.

This study aimed to describe total volume and cross-sectional area measurement changes in obstructive sleep apnoea patients associated with a supine versus an upright position.

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent cone beam computed tomography in upright and supine positions was performed, and the images were analysed.

Five obstructive sleep apnoea patients (all male) underwent both upright and supine cone beam computed tomography imaging. Mean age was 35.0 ± 9.3 years, mean body mass index was 28.1 ± 2.7 kg/m2 and mean apnoea–hypopnoea index was 39.3 ± 23.0 per hour. The airway was smaller when patients were in a supine compared with an upright position, as reflected by decreases in the following airway measurements: total volume; posterior nasal spine, uvula tip, retrolingual and tongue base (not significant) cross-sectional areas; and site of the minimum cross-sectional area (of the overall airway). Total airway volume decreased by 32.6 per cent and cross-sectional area measurements decreased between 32.3 and 75.9 per cent when patients were in a supine position.

In this case series, the airway of obstructive sleep apnoea patients was significantly smaller when patients were in a supine compared with an upright position.