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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2007-03, Vol.67 (3), p.670-677
Hauptverfasser: Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D, Langen, Katja M., Ph.D, Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D, Manon, Rafael R., M.D, Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D, Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S, Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D, Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 677
container_issue 3
container_start_page 670
container_title International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
container_volume 67
creator Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D
Langen, Katja M., Ph.D
Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D
Manon, Rafael R., M.D
Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D
Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S
Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D
Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.040
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_20944715</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0360301606032299</els_id><sourcerecordid>69001555</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-ce3a53cabbda763c081874aed6c457fd2247182ba1b73a6fa3f3b71f3e77e8503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU2L1TAUhoMoznX0H4gEhNm1njRNc7MRZBg_YEBBBXchTU_nptObXJN0YP69Kb0guHF1Ns978uY5hLxmUDNg3bupdlMM_aluALoaVA0tPCE7tpeq4kL8ekp2wDuoeIEvyIuUJgBgTLbPyQWTTEnW8B35dvNg5sVkFzwNI3VHc4fV3eIG4y3SUww52DAn6jzNB6Q5oslH9HmFD2gGavxAPdp7atdETC_Js9HMCV-d5yX5-fHmx_Xn6vbrpy_XH24rK0DlyiI3glvT94ORHbewL8Vbg0NnWyHHoWlayfZNb1gvuelGw0feSzZylBL3AvglebvtDSk7nazLaA82-NIl6wZUW_KiUFcbVX7ye8GU9dEli_NsPIYl6U4VJ0KsYLuBNoaUIo76FIuM-KgZ6NW3nvTmW6--NShdfJfYm_P-pT_i8Dd0FlyA9xuAxcWDw7hWxWJqcHFtOgT3vxf-XWBn55018z0-YprCEn3xrJlOjQb9fb35enIoo2mU4n8ArbCnsQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69001555</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D ; Langen, Katja M., Ph.D ; Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D ; Manon, Rafael R., M.D ; Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D ; Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S ; Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D ; Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D ; Langen, Katja M., Ph.D ; Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D ; Manon, Rafael R., M.D ; Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D ; Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S ; Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D ; Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</creatorcontrib><description>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 &gt;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 &gt;3 mm and &gt;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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-3016</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-355X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.040</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17197123</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Alignment protocols ; CARCINOMAS ; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ; CORRECTIONS ; ERRORS ; EVALUATION ; HEAD ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Head-and-neck cancers ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; Image guidance ; Megavoltage CT ; NECK ; PATIENTS ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Radiology ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; RADIOTHERAPY ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards ; Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods ; Tomography, Spiral Computed - standards ; TomoTherapy</subject><ispartof>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2007-03, Vol.67 (3), p.670-677</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-ce3a53cabbda763c081874aed6c457fd2247182ba1b73a6fa3f3b71f3e77e8503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-ce3a53cabbda763c081874aed6c457fd2247182ba1b73a6fa3f3b71f3e77e8503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360301606032299$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197123$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/20944715$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langen, Katja M., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manon, Rafael R., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers</title><title>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</title><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><description>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 &gt;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 &gt;3 mm and &gt;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.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Alignment protocols</subject><subject>CARCINOMAS</subject><subject>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>CORRECTIONS</subject><subject>ERRORS</subject><subject>EVALUATION</subject><subject>HEAD</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Head-and-neck cancers</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image guidance</subject><subject>Megavoltage CT</subject><subject>NECK</subject><subject>PATIENTS</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>RADIOTHERAPY</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</subject><subject>Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tomography, Spiral Computed - standards</subject><subject>TomoTherapy</subject><issn>0360-3016</issn><issn>1879-355X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU2L1TAUhoMoznX0H4gEhNm1njRNc7MRZBg_YEBBBXchTU_nptObXJN0YP69Kb0guHF1Ns978uY5hLxmUDNg3bupdlMM_aluALoaVA0tPCE7tpeq4kL8ekp2wDuoeIEvyIuUJgBgTLbPyQWTTEnW8B35dvNg5sVkFzwNI3VHc4fV3eIG4y3SUww52DAn6jzNB6Q5oslH9HmFD2gGavxAPdp7atdETC_Js9HMCV-d5yX5-fHmx_Xn6vbrpy_XH24rK0DlyiI3glvT94ORHbewL8Vbg0NnWyHHoWlayfZNb1gvuelGw0feSzZylBL3AvglebvtDSk7nazLaA82-NIl6wZUW_KiUFcbVX7ye8GU9dEli_NsPIYl6U4VJ0KsYLuBNoaUIo76FIuM-KgZ6NW3nvTmW6--NShdfJfYm_P-pT_i8Dd0FlyA9xuAxcWDw7hWxWJqcHFtOgT3vxf-XWBn55018z0-YprCEn3xrJlOjQb9fb35enIoo2mU4n8ArbCnsQ</recordid><startdate>20070301</startdate><enddate>20070301</enddate><creator>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D</creator><creator>Langen, Katja M., Ph.D</creator><creator>Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D</creator><creator>Manon, Rafael R., M.D</creator><creator>Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D</creator><creator>Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S</creator><creator>Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D</creator><creator>Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070301</creationdate><title>Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers</title><author>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D ; Langen, Katja M., Ph.D ; Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D ; Manon, Rafael R., M.D ; Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D ; Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S ; Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D ; Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-ce3a53cabbda763c081874aed6c457fd2247182ba1b73a6fa3f3b71f3e77e8503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Alignment protocols</topic><topic>CARCINOMAS</topic><topic>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>CORRECTIONS</topic><topic>ERRORS</topic><topic>EVALUATION</topic><topic>HEAD</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Head-and-neck cancers</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image guidance</topic><topic>Megavoltage CT</topic><topic>NECK</topic><topic>PATIENTS</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>RADIOTHERAPY</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</topic><topic>Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tomography, Spiral Computed - standards</topic><topic>TomoTherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langen, Katja M., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manon, Rafael R., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zeidan, Omar A., Ph.D</au><au>Langen, Katja M., Ph.D</au><au>Meeks, Sanford L., Ph.D</au><au>Manon, Rafael R., M.D</au><au>Wagner, Thomas H., Ph.D</au><au>Willoughby, Twyla R., M.S</au><au>Jenkins, D. Wayne, M.D</au><au>Kupelian, Patrick A., M.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers</atitle><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><date>2007-03-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>670</spage><epage>677</epage><pages>670-677</pages><issn>0360-3016</issn><eissn>1879-355X</eissn><abstract>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 &gt;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 &gt;3 mm and &gt;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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17197123</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.040</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0360-3016
ispartof International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2007-03, Vol.67 (3), p.670-677
issn 0360-3016
1879-355X
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_20944715
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Algorithms
Alignment protocols
CARCINOMAS
COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY
CORRECTIONS
ERRORS
EVALUATION
HEAD
Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Head-and-neck cancers
Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine
Humans
Image guidance
Megavoltage CT
NECK
PATIENTS
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiology
RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
RADIOTHERAPY
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards
Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods
Tomography, Spiral Computed - standards
TomoTherapy
title Evaluation of image-guidance protocols in the treatment of head and neck cancers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T13%3A21%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20image-guidance%20protocols%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20head%20and%20neck%20cancers&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20radiation%20oncology,%20biology,%20physics&rft.au=Zeidan,%20Omar%20A.,%20Ph.D&rft.date=2007-03-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=670&rft.epage=677&rft.pages=670-677&rft.issn=0360-3016&rft.eissn=1879-355X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.040&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E69001555%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69001555&rft_id=info:pmid/17197123&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0360301606032299&rfr_iscdi=true