Clinical comparison of positional accuracy and stability between dedicated versus conventional masks for immobilization in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy using 6-degree-of-freedom image guidance system-integrated platform

Ohtakara, Kazuhiro; Hayashi, Shinya; Tanaka, Hidekazu; Hoshi, Hiroaki; Kitahara, Masashi; Matsuyama, K.; Okada, H

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.012

Cited by 38 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our current study, we assume the rotational error is either small enough to have no clinically relevant influence or will be corrected for, e.g., by using a 6D couch [30,31].…”

Section: Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive evaluation of treatment accuracy, including end-to-end tests and clinical data, applied to intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

Seravalli

Haaren

Toorn

et al. 2015

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In our current study, we assume the rotational error is either small enough to have no clinically relevant influence or will be corrected for, e.g., by using a 6D couch [30,31].…”

Section: Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive evaluation of treatment accuracy, including end-to-end tests and clinical data, applied to intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

Seravalli

Haaren

Toorn

et al. 2015

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While there exist a number of studies that have assessed the positional accuracy and stability of different invasive and noninvasive immobilization systems for cranial stereotactic radiotherapy,6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 to our knowledge, no study has directly compared the performance of various systems used in the same institution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To frame or not to frame? Cone‐beam CT‐based analysis of head immobilization devices specific to linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy

Babic

Lee

Ruschin

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeNoninvasive frameless systems are increasingly being utilized for head immobilization in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Knowing the head positioning reproducibility of frameless systems and their respective ability to limit intrafractional head motion is important in order to safely perform SRS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the intrafractional head motion of an invasive frame and a series of frameless systems for single fraction SRS and fractionated/hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT/HF‐SRT).MethodsThe noninvasive PinPoint system was used on 15 HF‐SRT and 21 SRS patients. Intrafractional motion for these patients was compared to 15 SRS patients immobilized with Cosman‐Roberts‐Wells (CRW) frame, and a FSRT population that respectively included 23, 32, and 15 patients immobilized using Gill‐Thomas‐Cosman (GTC) frame, Uniframe, and Orfit. All HF‐SRT and FSRT patients were treated using intensity‐modulated radiation therapy on a linear accelerator equipped with cone‐beam CT (CBCT) and a robotic couch. SRS patients were treated using gantry‐mounted stereotactic cones. The CBCT image‐guidance protocol included initial setup, pretreatment and post‐treatment verification images. The residual error determined from the post‐treatment CBCT was used as a surrogate for intrafractional head motion during treatment.ResultsThe mean intrafractional motion over all fractions with PinPoint was 0.62 ± 0.33 mm and 0.45 ± 0.33 mm, respectively, for the HF‐SRT and SRS cohort of patients (P‐value = 0.266). For CRW, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, the mean intrafractional motions were 0.30 ± 0.21 mm, 0.54 ± 0.76 mm, 0.73 ± 0.49 mm, and 0.76 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. For CRW, PinPoint, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, intrafractional motion exceeded 1.5 mm in 0%, 0%, 5%, 6%, and 8% of all fractions treated, respectively.ConclusionsThe noninvasive PinPoint system and the invasive CRW frame stringently limit cranial intrafractional motion, while the latter provides superior immobilization. Based on the results of this study, our clinical practice for malignant tumors has evolved to apply an invasive CRW frame only for metastases in eloquent locations to minimize normal tissue exposure.

show abstract

“…In clinical practice, we have routinely used several optimization techniques, including the use of modified PTV geometry as a surrogate for leaf fitting to improve dose conformity, and manual adjustment of the selected leaf positions to further sculpt dose distribution (e.g., mitigation of the dose hot area within the chest wall). 10,[31][32][33] Lastly, this was a planning study, and the results must therefore be validated through a prospectively designed clinical research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,10,12 Comparisons of paired and unpaired variables were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate any correlations between variables.…”

Section: Plan Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of pencil beam–based homogeneous vs inhomogeneous target dose planning for stereotactic body radiotherapy of peripheral lung tumors through Monte Carlo–based recalculation

Ohtakara

Hoshi

2015

Medical Dosimetry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical comparison of positional accuracy and stability between dedicated versus conventional masks for immobilization in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy using 6-degree-of-freedom image guidance system-integrated platform

Cited by 38 publications

References 17 publications

A comprehensive evaluation of treatment accuracy, including end-to-end tests and clinical data, applied to intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

A comprehensive evaluation of treatment accuracy, including end-to-end tests and clinical data, applied to intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

To frame or not to frame? Cone‐beam CT‐based analysis of head immobilization devices specific to linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy

Comparison of pencil beam–based homogeneous vs inhomogeneous target dose planning for stereotactic body radiotherapy of peripheral lung tumors through Monte Carlo–based recalculation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About