Assessment of interfractional variation of the breast surface following conventional patient positioning for whole‐breast radiotherapy

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantify the variability of the breast surface position when aligning whole-breast patients to bony landmarks based on MV portal films or skin marks alone. Surface imaging was used to assess the breast surface position of 11 whole-breast radiotherapy patients, but was not used for patient positioning. On filmed fractions, AlignRT v5.0 was used to capture the patient's surface after initial positioning based on skin marks (28 “preshifts” surfaces), and after treatment couch shifts based on MV films (41 “postshifts” surfaces). Translations and rotations based on surface captures were recorded, as well as couch shifts based on MV films. For nonfilmed treatments, “daily” surface images were captured following positioning to skin marks alone. Group mean and systematic and random errors were calculated for all datasets. Pearson correlation coefficients, setup margins, and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated for preshifts translations and MV film shifts. LOA between postshifts surfaces and the filmed treatment positions were also computed. All the surface captures collected were retrospectively compared to both a DICOM reference surface created from the planning CT and to an AlignRT reference surface. All statistical analyses were performed using the DICOM reference surface dataset. AlignRT reference surface data was only used to calculate the LOA with the DICOM reference data. This helped assess any outcome differences between both reference surfaces. Setup margins for preshifts surfaces and MV films range between 8.3–12.0 mm and 5.4–13.4 mm, respectively. The largest margin is along the left–right (LR) direction for preshift surfaces, and along craniocaudal (CC) for films. LOA ranges between the preshifts surfaces and MV film shifts are large (12.6–21.9 mm); these decrease for postshifts surfaces (9.8–18.4 mm), but still show significant disagreements between the two modalities due to their focus on different anatomical landmarks (patient's topography versus bony anatomy). Pearson's correlation coefficients further support this by showing low to moderate correlations in the anterior–posterior (AP) and LR directions (0.47–0.69) and no correlation along CC (< 0.15). The use of an AlignRT reference surface compared to the DICOM reference surface does not significantly affect the LOA. Alignment of breast patients based solely on bony alignment may lead to interfractional inconsistencies in the breast surface position. The use of surface imaging tools highlights these discrepancies, and allows the radiation oncology team to better assess the possible effects on treatment quality.

Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy

“…The patient setup used in this study was generally similar to other CBCT-based studies, most using immobilisation device to support patients' arms for stability. The results for CBCT-S were also similar to those reported by Padilla et al 31 where optical surface verification tools were used to measure setup errors with approximately 1 mm difference in systematic and random errors between the two studies. All three registration methods in this study utilised different regions of interest.…”

Monitoring ABC‐assisted deep inspiration breath hold for left‐sided breast radiotherapy with an optical tracking system

“…In patients with pendulous breast tissue, alignment based solely on bony anatomy can lead to discrepancies in the breast surface position. 29 No pendulous breasts were observed in this study, and the differences between bony alignment and soft tissue alignment were less than 5 mm for all patients. Although treatment setup was limited to weekly portal imaging verification, minimal setup variations between image guidance sessions were observed.…”

Prospective Study of Infrared-Guided Patient Setup for Fractionated Thoracic Radiation

“…AlignRT to reduce setup errors as but an average of 9 mm shifts remain when compared to portal imaging [20]. Another similar study of this technique showed mean displacements were 4.1 ± 2.6 mm, 2.7 ± 1.4 mm, and 2.6 ± 1. .…”