SU‐GG‐J‐111

Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy

Y. Chen, D. Rosenthal, S. Kry, P. Wong, S. Harrelson, S. Hayden, A. Garden, David Schwartz, L. Dong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate two commercially available Head‐and‐Neck immobilization devices for daily treatment setup and their correlations to anatomy changes. The study represents an early implementation experience with the Orfit mask, which was new to our clinic. Method and Materials: Twenty‐one patients enrolled in an in‐house adaptive radiotherapy protocol 3171 using daily CT guided treatment were randomly assigned to one of two different thermoplastic masks: 5‐Point Efficast mask from Orfit (ORFIT Industries, Jericho, NY) or the extended S‐Board mask from Civco (CIVCO/MedTec, Orange City, IA). The daily setup displacements in each of the antero‐posterior(AP), supero‐inferior(SI), and medio‐lateral(ML) direction were determined using a 3D rigid image registration technique with the C2 vertebral body as the bony landmark. Systematic and random setup errors were computed for each group. The Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between parotid shrinkage and the magnitudes of 3D displacements. Results: The random errors in AP, SI, and ML directions for Orfit mask (10 patients) were 0.13, 0.12, 0.11cm, and 0.12, 0.16, 0.11cm for the Civco mask (11 patients), respectively. The systematic errors were 0.20, 0.12, 0.16 cm for the Orfit mask, and 0.16, 0.16, 0.13 cm for the Civco mask, respectively. The Orfit mask significantly reduced the setup error in SI direction. However, in the AP and ML directions the systematic error increased with the Orfit mask, although the random errors were similar. The magnitude of the total (3D) shift was found to be correlated with the percent of parotid shrinkage for the Civco mask (p=0.026), but not for the Orfit mask. Conclusion: Although the Orfit mask reduced setup error in SI direction due to its head rest design, setup errors in AP and ML directions increased mainly due to increased systematic mask preparation errors. User training may be important.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3170-3171
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

Fingerprint

Masks
Immobilization
Radiotherapy
Equipment and Supplies
Orfit
Direction compound
Anatomy
Industry
Head

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Chen, Y., Rosenthal, D., Kry, S., Wong, P., Harrelson, S., Hayden, S., ... Dong, L. (2010). SU‐GG‐J‐111: Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy. Medical Physics, 37(6), 3170-3171. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3468335

SU‐GG‐J‐111 : Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy. / Chen, Y.; Rosenthal, D.; Kry, S.; Wong, P.; Harrelson, S.; Hayden, S.; Garden, A.; Schwartz, David; Dong, L.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 6, 01.01.2010, p. 3170-3171.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chen, Y, Rosenthal, D, Kry, S, Wong, P, Harrelson, S, Hayden, S, Garden, A, Schwartz, D & Dong, L 2010, 'SU‐GG‐J‐111: Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy', Medical Physics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 3170-3171. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3468335
Chen, Y. ; Rosenthal, D. ; Kry, S. ; Wong, P. ; Harrelson, S. ; Hayden, S. ; Garden, A. ; Schwartz, David ; Dong, L. / SU‐GG‐J‐111 : Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy. In: Medical Physics. 2010 ; Vol. 37, No. 6. pp. 3170-3171.
@article{b98d286af4804bef8f0416e8b84e3a3f,
title = "SU‐GG‐J‐111: Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate two commercially available Head‐and‐Neck immobilization devices for daily treatment setup and their correlations to anatomy changes. The study represents an early implementation experience with the Orfit mask, which was new to our clinic. Method and Materials: Twenty‐one patients enrolled in an in‐house adaptive radiotherapy protocol 3171 using daily CT guided treatment were randomly assigned to one of two different thermoplastic masks: 5‐Point Efficast mask from Orfit (ORFIT Industries, Jericho, NY) or the extended S‐Board mask from Civco (CIVCO/MedTec, Orange City, IA). The daily setup displacements in each of the antero‐posterior(AP), supero‐inferior(SI), and medio‐lateral(ML) direction were determined using a 3D rigid image registration technique with the C2 vertebral body as the bony landmark. Systematic and random setup errors were computed for each group. The Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between parotid shrinkage and the magnitudes of 3D displacements. Results: The random errors in AP, SI, and ML directions for Orfit mask (10 patients) were 0.13, 0.12, 0.11cm, and 0.12, 0.16, 0.11cm for the Civco mask (11 patients), respectively. The systematic errors were 0.20, 0.12, 0.16 cm for the Orfit mask, and 0.16, 0.16, 0.13 cm for the Civco mask, respectively. The Orfit mask significantly reduced the setup error in SI direction. However, in the AP and ML directions the systematic error increased with the Orfit mask, although the random errors were similar. The magnitude of the total (3D) shift was found to be correlated with the percent of parotid shrinkage for the Civco mask (p=0.026), but not for the Orfit mask. Conclusion: Although the Orfit mask reduced setup error in SI direction due to its head rest design, setup errors in AP and ML directions increased mainly due to increased systematic mask preparation errors. User training may be important.",
author = "Y. Chen and D. Rosenthal and S. Kry and P. Wong and S. Harrelson and S. Hayden and A. Garden and David Schwartz and L. Dong",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.3468335",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "3170--3171",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐J‐111

T2 - Evaluation of Reproducibility of Immobilization Device for Head‐And‐Neck Radiotherapy

AU - Chen, Y.

AU - Rosenthal, D.

AU - Kry, S.

AU - Wong, P.

AU - Harrelson, S.

AU - Hayden, S.

AU - Garden, A.

AU - Schwartz, David

AU - Dong, L.

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate two commercially available Head‐and‐Neck immobilization devices for daily treatment setup and their correlations to anatomy changes. The study represents an early implementation experience with the Orfit mask, which was new to our clinic. Method and Materials: Twenty‐one patients enrolled in an in‐house adaptive radiotherapy protocol 3171 using daily CT guided treatment were randomly assigned to one of two different thermoplastic masks: 5‐Point Efficast mask from Orfit (ORFIT Industries, Jericho, NY) or the extended S‐Board mask from Civco (CIVCO/MedTec, Orange City, IA). The daily setup displacements in each of the antero‐posterior(AP), supero‐inferior(SI), and medio‐lateral(ML) direction were determined using a 3D rigid image registration technique with the C2 vertebral body as the bony landmark. Systematic and random setup errors were computed for each group. The Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between parotid shrinkage and the magnitudes of 3D displacements. Results: The random errors in AP, SI, and ML directions for Orfit mask (10 patients) were 0.13, 0.12, 0.11cm, and 0.12, 0.16, 0.11cm for the Civco mask (11 patients), respectively. The systematic errors were 0.20, 0.12, 0.16 cm for the Orfit mask, and 0.16, 0.16, 0.13 cm for the Civco mask, respectively. The Orfit mask significantly reduced the setup error in SI direction. However, in the AP and ML directions the systematic error increased with the Orfit mask, although the random errors were similar. The magnitude of the total (3D) shift was found to be correlated with the percent of parotid shrinkage for the Civco mask (p=0.026), but not for the Orfit mask. Conclusion: Although the Orfit mask reduced setup error in SI direction due to its head rest design, setup errors in AP and ML directions increased mainly due to increased systematic mask preparation errors. User training may be important.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate two commercially available Head‐and‐Neck immobilization devices for daily treatment setup and their correlations to anatomy changes. The study represents an early implementation experience with the Orfit mask, which was new to our clinic. Method and Materials: Twenty‐one patients enrolled in an in‐house adaptive radiotherapy protocol 3171 using daily CT guided treatment were randomly assigned to one of two different thermoplastic masks: 5‐Point Efficast mask from Orfit (ORFIT Industries, Jericho, NY) or the extended S‐Board mask from Civco (CIVCO/MedTec, Orange City, IA). The daily setup displacements in each of the antero‐posterior(AP), supero‐inferior(SI), and medio‐lateral(ML) direction were determined using a 3D rigid image registration technique with the C2 vertebral body as the bony landmark. Systematic and random setup errors were computed for each group. The Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between parotid shrinkage and the magnitudes of 3D displacements. Results: The random errors in AP, SI, and ML directions for Orfit mask (10 patients) were 0.13, 0.12, 0.11cm, and 0.12, 0.16, 0.11cm for the Civco mask (11 patients), respectively. The systematic errors were 0.20, 0.12, 0.16 cm for the Orfit mask, and 0.16, 0.16, 0.13 cm for the Civco mask, respectively. The Orfit mask significantly reduced the setup error in SI direction. However, in the AP and ML directions the systematic error increased with the Orfit mask, although the random errors were similar. The magnitude of the total (3D) shift was found to be correlated with the percent of parotid shrinkage for the Civco mask (p=0.026), but not for the Orfit mask. Conclusion: Although the Orfit mask reduced setup error in SI direction due to its head rest design, setup errors in AP and ML directions increased mainly due to increased systematic mask preparation errors. User training may be important.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024826779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024826779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3468335

DO - 10.1118/1.3468335

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 3170

EP - 3171

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -