Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems

Lorraine Courneyea, John Mullins, Michelle Howard, Robert Foote, Yolanda Isabel Garces, Daniel Ma, Chris Beltran, Debra H Brinkmann, Deanna Pafundi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of offline rotational corrections and assess intrafraction motion for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients immobilized with and without a custom neck cushion. Methods and materials: Fifty H&N cancer patients were immobilized and imaged with pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for each treatment fraction. Of these patients, 25 had a custom neck cushion added to their immobilization. Each CBCT was registered to the simulation computed tomography offline. Registrations were performed with automatching tools and a matching volume of interest that consisted of a 5-mm expansion around the mandible, occipital bone, C1/C2, and C7/T1. To determine positioning accuracy, the registration was inspected to confirm these bony anatomy structures were contained within a 3- or 5-mm expansion of the simulation position. If not, the registration was repeated with rotational corrections included and re-evaluated. For each fraction, intrafraction motion was also quantified through the difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment CBCT registration coordinates. Results: For translational registrations, the bony anatomy in pretreatment imaging was outside the 3-mm or 5-mm expansion structure, respectively, for 49% and 15% of fractions on average for patients without a custom headrest and for 48% and 13% of fractions on average for patients with a custom headrest. The addition of rotational corrections reduced these numbers to 21% and 4% and to 28% and 6%, respectively. Intrafraction motion was significantly lower for patients immobilized with the addition of a custom neck cushion: 1.0 ± 0.5 mm compared with 1.8 ± 1.6 mm for patients with the standard headrest only (P =02). This was reflected in posttreatment positioning accuracy, which was significantly reduced in the case of the standard headrest compared with pretreatment imaging (P values of

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e575-e581
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Immobilization
Neck
Head
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Anatomy
Occipital Bone
Mandible
Neoplasms
Tomography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems. / Courneyea, Lorraine; Mullins, John; Howard, Michelle; Foote, Robert; Garces, Yolanda Isabel; Ma, Daniel; Beltran, Chris; Brinkmann, Debra H; Pafundi, Deanna.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.11.2015, p. e575-e581.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Courneyea, Lorraine ; Mullins, John ; Howard, Michelle ; Foote, Robert ; Garces, Yolanda Isabel ; Ma, Daniel ; Beltran, Chris ; Brinkmann, Debra H ; Pafundi, Deanna. / Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems. In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 6. pp. e575-e581.
@article{c3e17a5032194e248cc53de2309f7b56,
title = "Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of offline rotational corrections and assess intrafraction motion for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients immobilized with and without a custom neck cushion. Methods and materials: Fifty H&N cancer patients were immobilized and imaged with pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for each treatment fraction. Of these patients, 25 had a custom neck cushion added to their immobilization. Each CBCT was registered to the simulation computed tomography offline. Registrations were performed with automatching tools and a matching volume of interest that consisted of a 5-mm expansion around the mandible, occipital bone, C1/C2, and C7/T1. To determine positioning accuracy, the registration was inspected to confirm these bony anatomy structures were contained within a 3- or 5-mm expansion of the simulation position. If not, the registration was repeated with rotational corrections included and re-evaluated. For each fraction, intrafraction motion was also quantified through the difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment CBCT registration coordinates. Results: For translational registrations, the bony anatomy in pretreatment imaging was outside the 3-mm or 5-mm expansion structure, respectively, for 49{\%} and 15{\%} of fractions on average for patients without a custom headrest and for 48{\%} and 13{\%} of fractions on average for patients with a custom headrest. The addition of rotational corrections reduced these numbers to 21{\%} and 4{\%} and to 28{\%} and 6{\%}, respectively. Intrafraction motion was significantly lower for patients immobilized with the addition of a custom neck cushion: 1.0 ± 0.5 mm compared with 1.8 ± 1.6 mm for patients with the standard headrest only (P =02). This was reflected in posttreatment positioning accuracy, which was significantly reduced in the case of the standard headrest compared with pretreatment imaging (P values of",
author = "Lorraine Courneyea and John Mullins and Michelle Howard and Robert Foote and Garces, {Yolanda Isabel} and Daniel Ma and Chris Beltran and Brinkmann, {Debra H} and Deanna Pafundi",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2015.05.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "e575--e581",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems

AU - Courneyea, Lorraine

AU - Mullins, John

AU - Howard, Michelle

AU - Foote, Robert

AU - Garces, Yolanda Isabel

AU - Ma, Daniel

AU - Beltran, Chris

AU - Brinkmann, Debra H

AU - Pafundi, Deanna

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of offline rotational corrections and assess intrafraction motion for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients immobilized with and without a custom neck cushion. Methods and materials: Fifty H&N cancer patients were immobilized and imaged with pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for each treatment fraction. Of these patients, 25 had a custom neck cushion added to their immobilization. Each CBCT was registered to the simulation computed tomography offline. Registrations were performed with automatching tools and a matching volume of interest that consisted of a 5-mm expansion around the mandible, occipital bone, C1/C2, and C7/T1. To determine positioning accuracy, the registration was inspected to confirm these bony anatomy structures were contained within a 3- or 5-mm expansion of the simulation position. If not, the registration was repeated with rotational corrections included and re-evaluated. For each fraction, intrafraction motion was also quantified through the difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment CBCT registration coordinates. Results: For translational registrations, the bony anatomy in pretreatment imaging was outside the 3-mm or 5-mm expansion structure, respectively, for 49% and 15% of fractions on average for patients without a custom headrest and for 48% and 13% of fractions on average for patients with a custom headrest. The addition of rotational corrections reduced these numbers to 21% and 4% and to 28% and 6%, respectively. Intrafraction motion was significantly lower for patients immobilized with the addition of a custom neck cushion: 1.0 ± 0.5 mm compared with 1.8 ± 1.6 mm for patients with the standard headrest only (P =02). This was reflected in posttreatment positioning accuracy, which was significantly reduced in the case of the standard headrest compared with pretreatment imaging (P values of

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of offline rotational corrections and assess intrafraction motion for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients immobilized with and without a custom neck cushion. Methods and materials: Fifty H&N cancer patients were immobilized and imaged with pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for each treatment fraction. Of these patients, 25 had a custom neck cushion added to their immobilization. Each CBCT was registered to the simulation computed tomography offline. Registrations were performed with automatching tools and a matching volume of interest that consisted of a 5-mm expansion around the mandible, occipital bone, C1/C2, and C7/T1. To determine positioning accuracy, the registration was inspected to confirm these bony anatomy structures were contained within a 3- or 5-mm expansion of the simulation position. If not, the registration was repeated with rotational corrections included and re-evaluated. For each fraction, intrafraction motion was also quantified through the difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment CBCT registration coordinates. Results: For translational registrations, the bony anatomy in pretreatment imaging was outside the 3-mm or 5-mm expansion structure, respectively, for 49% and 15% of fractions on average for patients without a custom headrest and for 48% and 13% of fractions on average for patients with a custom headrest. The addition of rotational corrections reduced these numbers to 21% and 4% and to 28% and 6%, respectively. Intrafraction motion was significantly lower for patients immobilized with the addition of a custom neck cushion: 1.0 ± 0.5 mm compared with 1.8 ± 1.6 mm for patients with the standard headrest only (P =02). This was reflected in posttreatment positioning accuracy, which was significantly reduced in the case of the standard headrest compared with pretreatment imaging (P values of

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946499192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946499192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.05.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 26169225

AN - SCOPUS:84946499192

VL - 5

SP - e575-e581

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

IS - 6

ER -