Dataset Information

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

ABSTRACT: We investigate the difference between surface matching and target matching for pelvic radiation image guidance. The uniqueness of our study is that all patients have multiple CT-on-rails (CTOR) scans to compare to corresponding AlignRT images. Ten patients receiving pelvic radiation were enrolled in this study. Two simulation CT scans were performed in supine and prone positions for each patient. Body surface contours were generated in treatment planning system and exported to AlignRT to serve as reference images. During treatment day, the patient was aligned to treatment isocenter with room lasers, and then scanned with both CTOR and AlignRT. Image-guidance shifts were calculated for both modalities by com-parison to the simulation CT and the differences between them were analyzed for both supine and prone positions, respectively. These procedures were performed for each patient once per week for five weeks. The difference of patient displace-ment between AlignRT and CTOR was analyzed. For supine position, five patients had an average difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR along any direction (vertical, longitudinal, and lateral) greater than 0.5 cm, and one patient greater than 1 cm. Four patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. For prone position, seven patients had an average difference greater than 0.5 cm, and three patients greater than 1 cm. Nine patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. The difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR was greater for the prone position than for the supine position. For the patients studied here, surface matching does not appear to be an advisable image-guidance approach for pelvic radiation therapy for patients with either supine or prone position. There appears to be a potential for large alignment discrepancies (up to 2.25 cm) between surface matching and target matching.

SUBMITTER: Zhao H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5690902 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

Zhao Hui H Wang Brian B Sarkar Vikren V Rassiah-Szegedi Prema P Huang Y Jessica YJ Szegedi Martin M Huang Long L Gonzalez Victor V Salter Bill B

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20160508 3

We investigate the difference between surface matching and target matching for pelvic radiation image guidance. The uniqueness of our study is that all patients have multiple CT-on-rails (CTOR) scans to compare to corresponding AlignRT images. Ten patients receiving pelvic radiation were enrolled in this study. Two simulation CT scans were performed in supine and prone positions for each patient. Body surface contours were generated in treatment planning system and exported to AlignRT to serve a ...[more]

PMID: 27167254

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) benefit from prone positioning. Although the accuracy of esophageal pressure (Pes) to estimate regional pleural pressure (Ppl) has previously been assessed in the supine position, such data are not available in the prone position in ARDS. In six anesthetized, paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated female pigs, we measured Pes and Ppl into dorsal and ventral parts of the right pleural cavity. Airway pressure (Paw) and flow were measured at the airway opening. Severe ARDS [arterial partial pressure of oxygen ([Formula: see text])/fraction of inspired oxygen ([Formula: see text]) < 100 mmHg at positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cmH2O] was induced by surfactant depletion. In supine and prone positions assigned in a random order, PEEP was set to 20, 15, 10, and 5 cmH2O and static end-expiratory chest wall pressures were measured from Pes (PEEPtot,es) and dorsal (PEEPtot,PplD) and ventral (PEEPtot,PplV) Ppl. The magnitude of the difference between PEEPtot,es and PEEPtot,PplD was similar in each position [-3.6 cmH2O in supine vs. -3.8 cmH2O in prone at PEEP 20 cmH2O (PEEP 20)]. The difference between PEEPtot,es and PEEPtot,PplV became narrower in the prone position (-8.3 cmH2O supine vs. -3.0 cmH2O prone at PEEP 20). PEEPtot,PplV was overestimated by Pes in the prone position at higher pressures. The median (1st-3rd quartiles) dorsal-to-ventral Ppl gradient was 4.4 (2.4-6.8) cmH2O in the supine position and -1.5 (-3.5 to +1.1) cmH2O in the prone position (P < 0.0001) and marginally influenced by PEEP (P = 0.058). Prone position narrowed end-expiratory dorsal-to-ventral Ppl vertical gradient, likely because of a more even distribution of mechanical forces over the chest wall.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In a porcine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome, we found that static end-expiratory esophageal pressure did not change significantly in prone position compared with supine position at any positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) tested between 5 and 20 cmH2O. Prone position was associated with an increased ventral pleural pressure and reduced end-expiratory dorsal-to-ventral pleural pressure (Ppl) vertical gradient, likely due to a more even distribution of mechanical forces over the chest wall.

Dataset Information

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

Publications

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets