Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to assess the residual setup error of different image-guidance (IG) protocols in the alignment of patients with head and neck cancer. The protocols differ in the percentage of treatment fractions that are associated with image guidance. Using data from patients who were treated with daily IG, the residual setup errors for several different protocols are retrospectively calculated. METHODS AND MATERIALS Alignment data from 24 patients (802 fractions) treated with daily IG on a helical tomotherapy unit were analyzed. The difference between the daily setup correction and the setup correction that would have been made according to a specific protocol was used to calculate the residual setup errors for each protocol. RESULTS The different protocols are generally effective in reducing systematic setup errors. Random setup errors are generally not reduced for fractions that are not image guided. As a consequence, if every other treatment is image guided, still about 11% of all treatments (IG and not IG) are subject to three-dimensional setup errors of at least 5 mm. This frequency increases to about 29% if setup errors >3 mm are scored. For various protocols that require 15% to 31% of the treatments to be image guided, from 50% to 60% and from 26% to 31% of all fractions are subject to setup errors >3 mm and >5 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION Residual setup errors reduce with increasing frequency of IG during the course of external-beam radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer patients. The inability to reduce random setup errors for fractions that are not image guided results in notable residual setup errors.

[1]  T. Mackie,et al.  Megavoltage CT on a tomotherapy system. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Gary A Ezzell,et al.  Initial experience with ultrasound localization for positioning prostate cancer patients for external beam radiotherapy. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Patrick A Kupelian,et al.  Performance characterization of megavoltage computed tomography imaging on a helical tomotherapy unit. , 2005, Medical physics.

[4]  L. Verhey,et al.  Immobilizing and Positioning Patients for Radiotherapy. , 1995, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[5]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  D A Jaffray,et al.  A radiographic and tomographic imaging system integrated into a medical linear accelerator for localization of bone and soft-tissue targets. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  M. Uematsu,et al.  A dual computed tomography linear accelerator unit for stereotactic radiation therapy: a new approach without cranially fixated stereotactic frames. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  B. Heijmen,et al.  A protocol for the reduction of systematic patient setup errors with minimal portal imaging workload. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  Ping Xia,et al.  Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT for radiation therapy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  Steve Webb,et al.  Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  M. Herk.  Errors and margins in radiotherapy. , 2004 .

[12]  J. Kapatoes,et al.  Limited-data image registration for radiotherapy positioning and verification. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  D Verellen,et al.  Electronic portal imaging with on-line correction of setup error in thoracic irradiation: clinical evaluation. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.