Bullous Pseudomonas skin infection and bacteremia caused by tattoo ink used in radiation therapy

Gilson, Robert Christopher; Pham, Catherine M.; Gilson, Robert T.

doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2015.05.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tattoos are permanent reminders of the history of the patient's cancer diagnosis and treatments. The ink used for tattoos can diffuse under the skin causing a larger discolored skin area and, occasionally, can cause allergic reactions, skin infection, and bacteremia [ 4 ]. Patient setup using tattoos can also be time-consuming due to the need to physically move a patient who may have lain down in a slightly different posture than when tattoos were applied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

Zhao¹,

Paxton²,

Sarkar³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis.Methods and materials: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods.Results: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%).Conclusions: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattooless patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%