AI Article Synopsis

  • Surface-guided radiation therapy, using optical surface imaging, was evaluated against traditional skin-marking methods for accuracy and efficiency in prostate cancer treatment setup.
  • A study of 125 patients showed minimal differences in shift values between the two methods, indicating comparable accuracy.
  • The average setup times were 6.72 minutes for skin-marking and 7.53 minutes for surface guidance, suggesting that both methods are similar in time efficiency.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Surface-guided radiation therapy is an image-guided method using optical surface imaging that has recently been adopted for patient setup and motion monitoring during treatment. We aimed to determine whether the surface guide setup is accurate and efficient compared to the skin-marking guide in prostate cancer treatment.

Materials And Methods: The skin-marking setup was performed, and vertical, longitudinal, and lateral couch values (labeled as "M") were recorded. Subsequently, the surface-guided setup was conducted, and couch values (labeled as "S") were recorded. After performing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the final couch values was recorded (labeled as "C"), and the shift value was calculated (labeled as "Gap (M-S)," "Gap (M-C)," "Gap (S-C)") and then compared. Additionally, the setup times for the skin marking and surface guides were also compared.

Results: One hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed, totaling 2,735 treatment fractions. Gap (M-S) showed minimal differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral averages (-0.03 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.06 cm, respectively). Gap (M-C) and Gap (S-C) exhibited a mean difference of 0.04 cm (p = 0.03) in the vertical direction, a mean difference of 0.35 cm (p = 0.52) in the longitudinal direction, and a mean difference of 0.11 cm (p = 0.91) in the lateral direction. There was no correlation between shift values and patient characteristics. The average setup time of the skin-marking guide was 6.72 minutes, and 7.53 minutes for the surface guide.

Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the surface and skin-marking guides regarding final CBCT shift values and no correlation between translational shift values and patient characteristics. We also observed minimal difference in setup time between the two methods. Therefore, the surface guide can be considered an accurate and time-efficient alternative to skin-marking guides.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10556842PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2023.00521DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

couch values
12
shift values
12
surface-guided radiation
8
radiation therapy
8
prostate cancer
8
setup
8
patient setup
8
surface guide
8
skin-marking guide
8
vertical longitudinal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!