Comparison of 3DCBCT and 4DCBCT matching results in setup error assessment and correction for breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.10.014
- VernacularTitle:基于3DCBCT/4DCBCT保乳术后VMAT摆位误差测量与校正的比较研究
- Author:
Yun DING
1
;
Yufeng LI
;
Qilin LI
;
Min GAO
;
Xiaobo WEI
;
Jin HUANG
;
Dan XI
;
Wendong GU
Author Information
1. 苏州大学附属第三医院 常州市第一人民医院放射肿瘤科
- Keywords:
Tomography,X-ray computed,cone beam;
Breast neoplasms/radiotherapy;
Setup error
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2017;26(10):1173-1176
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the differences in setup error ( SE) assessment and correction between three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography ( 3DCBCT ) and four-dimensional CBCT ( 4 DCBCT ) in breast irradiation patients during free breathing after breast-conserving surgery . Methods Twenty patients with breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery were recruited for external beam breast irradiation and 4DCBCT and 3DCBCT simulation. The target volumes were delineated. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were designed using the MONACO v510 treatment planning system. 3DCBCT and 4DCBCT images were collected alternately five times each before breast irradiation. The CT images were matched, and the interfraction SEs were acquired. After online setup correction, the residual errors were calculated, and the SEs, systematic errors, and random errors were compared. The paired t test was used for comparison between groups. Results The SEs acquired by 4DCBCT were significantly larger than those acquired by 3DCBCT in three directions ( P=0035, 0018, 0040 ) . After online setup correction, the random errors based on 3DCBCT were significantly smaller than those based on 4DCBCT in left-right and anterior-posterior ( AP ) directions ( 0.5± 039 mm vs. 0.7± 030 mm, P=0005;0.9± 109 mm vs. 1.2± 048 mm, P=0000) , and the residual errors based on 3DCBCT were also significantly smaller than those based on 4DCBCT in AP direction (0.2±033 mm vs. 0.6±063 mm, P=0000). The setup margins based on 4DCBCT was significantly larger than those based on 3DCBCT in AP direction both before and after online setup correction (P=0002). Conclusions Compared with 3DCBCT, 4DCBCT has more advantages in monitoring the SEs in three directions. Both 3DCBCT and 4DCBCT have similar efficacy in random error correction. The satisfying position repeatability and minimized target volume margins will be achieved by online setup correction.
