Faster and more accurate patient positioning with surface guided radiotherapy for ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer patients
- Resource Type
- Authors
- Sandra Hamid; Sven Bäck; A. Edvardsson; Annika Mannerberg; M. Kügele; Kristoffer Petersson; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Silke Engelholm; Sofie Ceberg
- Source
- Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology, Vol 19, Iss, Pp 41-45 (2021)
Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology
- Subject
- Materials science
Patient positioning
medicine.medical_treatment
ComputingMethodologies_IMAGEPROCESSINGANDCOMPUTERVISION
R895-920
Patient setup time
Prostate cancer
Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
Surface guided radiotherapy
otorhinolaryngologic diseases
medicine
natural sciences
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Care Planning
Radiotherapy workflow
RC254-282
Oncology (nursing)
business.industry
Health Policy
technology, industry, and agriculture
Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
equipment and supplies
medicine.disease
Longitudinal direction
Radiation therapy
biological sciences
Fiducial marker
Nuclear medicine
business
Research Article
- Language
- English
- ISSN
- 2405-6324
Highlights • 1 min time reduction for prostate patient setup using SGRT. • Accurate initial positioning for deep-seated target with surface imaging. • Improved workflow using intuitive color map for setup guidance.
Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease patient positioning time for localized prostate cancer patients compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup method. The patient setup accuracy was also compared between the two setup methods. Materials and methods A total of 40 localized prostate cancer patients were enrolled in this study, where 20 patients were positioned with surface imaging (SI) and 20 patients were positioned with 3-point localization. The setup time was obtained from the system log files of the linear accelerator and compared between the two methods. The patient setup was verified with daily orthogonal kV images which were matched based on the implanted gold fiducial markers. Resulting setup deviations between planned and online positions were compared between SI and 3-point localization. Results Median setup time was 2:50 min and 3:28 min for SI and 3-point localization, respectively (p