A Pilot Comparison Study of Setup Verif ication Between Two-Dimensional Kilo-Voltage (2DkV) Matchand Kilo-Voltage Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (kV-CBCT) Match for Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients

Main Article Content

Kullathorn Thephamongkhol
Kanyanee Laebua
Pittaya Dankulchai
Janjira Petsuksiri
Chumpot Kakanaporn
Lalida Tuntipumiamorn
Porntip Iampongpaiboon
Yaowalak Chansilpa
Pittayapoom Pattaranutraporn

Abstract

Objective: Setup verification is the critical part to make sure of the accuracy for Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer patients. This pilot study was designed to answer whether and how much the kV-CBCT in addition to 2DkV is more accurate than 2DkV alone in terms of verification parameters.
Methods: Images acquisition: Offline images were displayed in the matched position between reference images. 2D and 3D matches: The bony matches were done by using the location of the tumor in the nasopharyngeal and upper neck regions. The distances displaced from the isocenter were recorded in x-y-z directions. Analysis: The distance of the isocenter shift in each direction (X, Y, Z) were presented as point estimations. The alignment between the two methods was assessed with Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation. The 3 mm difference within 90% is considered as an acceptable range of non-inferiority of 2DkV, compared with CBCT.
Results: 11 nasopharyngeal cancer patients were included into this study. The correlation between 2DkV and kV-CBCT were 0.46, 0.11 and 0.16 for Superior-inferior (SI), Anterior-posterior (AP) and Left-right (LR) directions, respectively. The central value for the kV-CBCT; SI, AP and LR directional shift were 0.07, 0.06 and 0.03 cm, respectively, whereas the central value
for 2DkV; SI, AP and LR directional shift were 0.05, 0.07 and 0.04 cm. For the difference shift < 3 mm, the results > 90% were within acceptable value: 100% and 96.96% for SI and LR directions whereas the AP direction was 87.87%.
Conclusion: Compared with kV-CBCT by using our criteria, 2DkV images are accurate enough for treatment verification in nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Thephamongkhol, K. ., Laebua, K. ., Dankulchai, P. ., Petsuksiri, J. ., Kakanaporn, C. ., Tuntipumiamorn, L. ., Iampongpaiboon, P. ., Chansilpa, Y. ., & Pattaranutraporn, P. . (2020). A Pilot Comparison Study of Setup Verif ication Between Two-Dimensional Kilo-Voltage (2DkV) Matchand Kilo-Voltage Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (kV-CBCT) Match for Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients. Siriraj Medical Journal, 63(2), 47–51. Retrieved from https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sirirajmedj/article/view/240906
Section
Original Article

References

1. Puri DR, Chou W, Lee N. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: Dosimetric advantages and update of clinical results. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug;28(4):415-23.
2. Lee N, Puri DR, Blanco AI, Chao KS. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: An update. Head Neck. 2007 Apr;29(4):387-400.
3. Grégoire V, De Neve W, Eisbruch A, Lee N, Van den Weyngaert D, Van Gestel D. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma. Oncologist. 2007 May;12(5):555-64.
4. Eisbruch A. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005 Jan;2(1):34-9.
5. Zhang L, Garden AS, Lo J, Ang KK, Ahamad A, Morrison WH, et al. Multiple regions-of-interest analysis of setup uncertainties for head-andneck cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Apr 1;64(5):1559-69.
6. Barker JL Jr, Garden AS, Ang KK, O’Daniel JC, Wang H, Court LE, et al. Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 15;59(4):960-70.
7. Lee N, Zhu N, Baker L. Intra-fraction patient motion in head/neck cancer patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003 Oct 1;57(2):409.
8. Polat B, Wilbert J, Baier K, Flentje M, Guckenberger M. Nonrigid patient setup error in the head-and-neck region. Stralenther Onkol. 2007 Sep; 183(9):506-11.
9. Li H, Zhu XR, Zhang L, Dong L, Tung S, Ahamad A, et al. Comparison of 2D radiographic images and 3D cone beam CT for positioning head and neck radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul1;71(3):916-25.
10. Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Wu Q, Williamson JF, Schmidt-Ullrich RK. Effect of patient setup errors on simultaneously integrated boost head and neck IMRT treatment plans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Oct 1;63(2):422-33.
11. van Kranen S, van Beek S, Rasch C, van Herk M, Sonke JJ. Setup uncertainties of anatomical sub-region in head-and-neck cancer patients after offline CBCT guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):1566-73.
12. Mu G, Lee B, Khamene A. Clinically validating a 2D-3D image registration method to detect patient positioning error. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Sep;66(3):652.

Most read articles by the same author(s)