» Articles » PMID: 35077004

Accuracy of Patient Setup Positioning Using Surface-guided Radiotherapy with Deformable Registration in Cases of Surface Deformation

Overview
Date 2022 Jan 25
PMID 35077004
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Catalyst™ HD (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden) is surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) equipment that adopts a deformable model. The challenge in applying the SGRT system is accurately correcting the setup error using a deformable model when the body of the patient is deformed. This study evaluated the effect of breast deformation on the accuracy of the setup correction of the SGRT system. Physical breast phantoms were used to investigate the relationship between the mean deviation setup error obtained from the SGRT system and the breast deformation. Physical breast phantoms were used to simulate extension and shrinkage deformation (-30 to 30 mm) by changing breast pieces. Three-dimensional (3D) Slicer software was used to evaluate the deformation. The maximum deformations in X, Y, and Z directions were obtained as the differences between the original and deformed breasts. We collected the mean deviation setup error from the SGRT system by replacing the original breast part with the deformed breast part. The mean absolute difference of lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll, and yaw, between the rigid and deformable registrations was 2.4 ± 1.7 mm, 1.3 ± 1.2 mm, 6.4 ± 5.2 mm, 2.5° ± 2.5°, 2.2° ± 2.4°, and 1.0° ± 1.0°, respectively. Deformation in the Y direction had the best correlation with the mean deviation translation error (R = 0.949) and rotation error (R = 0.832). As the magnitude of breast deformation increased, both mean deviation setup errors increased, and there was greater error in translation than in rotation. Large deformation of the breast surface affects the setup correction. Deformation in the Y direction most affects translation and rotation errors.

Citing Articles

Development of a phantom for assessing the precision of setup in skin mark-less surface-guided radiotherapy.

Saito M, Ueda K, Nemoto H, Onishi Y, Suzuki H, Suzuki T J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 25(8):e14381.

PMID: 38696715 PMC: 11302819. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14381.


Surface-guided radiotherapy improves rotational accuracy in gynecological cancer patients.

Bolin M, Falk M, Hedman M, Gagliardi G, Onjukka E Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2024; 28(6):764-771.

PMID: 38515814 PMC: 10954265. DOI: 10.5603/rpor.98733.


Interfractional variation in whole-breast VMAT irradiation: a dosimetric study with complementary SGRT and CBCT patient setup.

Mankinen M, Viren T, Seppala J, Koivumaki T Radiat Oncol. 2024; 19(1):21.

PMID: 38347554 PMC: 10863193. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-024-02418-5.


Studies of the Impact of Rotational Errors on Translation Shifts and Dose Distribution in Image-Guided Radiotherapy.

Fu M, Cui Y, Qiu W, Cui Z, Zhang Y, Wang D Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 22:15330338231168763.

PMID: 37050884 PMC: 10102941. DOI: 10.1177/15330338231168763.


Accuracy of patient setup positioning using surface-guided radiotherapy with deformable registration in cases of surface deformation.

Kadman B, Takemura A, Ito T, Okada N, Kojima H, Ueda S J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(3):e13493.

PMID: 35077004 PMC: 9398221. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13493.

References
1.
Ono Y, Yoshimura M, Ono T, Fujimoto T, Miyabe Y, Matsuo Y . Appropriate margin for planning target volume for breast radiotherapy during deep inspiration breath-hold by variance component analysis. Radiat Oncol. 2021; 16(1):49. PMC: 7937254. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01777-7. View

2.
Meyer J, Smith W, Geneser S, Koger B, Kalet A, Young L . Characterizing a deformable registration algorithm for surface-guided breast radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2019; 47(2):352-362. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13921. View

3.
Hill-Kayser C, Vachani C, Hampshire M, Di Lullo G, Metz J . Cosmetic outcomes and complications reported by patients having undergone breast-conserving treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 83(3):839-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.08.013. View

4.
Morrish O, Tucker L, Black R, Willsher P, Duffy S, Gilbert F . Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation. Radiology. 2015; 275(2):356-65. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14141508. View

5.
Alderliesten T, Heemsbergen W, Betgen A, Topolnjak R, Elkhuizen P, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij C . Breast-shape changes during radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 6:71-76. PMC: 7807602. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.05.006. View