TY - JOUR
T1 - Robustness of patient positioning for interfractional error in carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer
T2 - Bone matching versus tumor matching
AU - Sakai, Makoto
AU - Kubota, Yoshiki
AU - Saitoh, Jun ichi
AU - Irie, Daisuke
AU - Shirai, Katsuyuki
AU - Okada, Ryosuke
AU - Torikoshi, Masami
AU - Ohno, Tatsuya
AU - Nakano, Takashi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Background and purpose: Patient positioning was compared by tumor matching (TM) and conventional bony structure matching (BM) in carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer to evaluate the robustness of TM and BM in determining interfractional error. Material and methods: Sixty irradiation fields were analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) images acquired before treatment initiation for confirmation (Conf-CT) were obtained under the same settings as the treatment planning CT images and used to evaluate both positioning methods. The dose distributions were recalculated for Conf-CT using both BM and TM, and the dose–volume histogram parameters [V95% of clinical target volume, V5Gy(RBE) of normal lung, and acceptance ratio (ratio of cases with V95% > 95%)] were evaluated. The required margin, which in 90% of cases achieved the acceptable condition, was also examined. Results: Using BM and TM, the median V95% was 98.93% and 100% (p < 0.001) and the mean V5Gy(RBE) was 135.9 and 125.8 (p = 0.694), respectively. The estimated required margins were 7.9 and 3.3 mm and increased by 53.9% and 2.5% of V5Gy(RBE), respectively, compared with planning. Conclusions: TM ensured a better dose distribution than did BM. To enable TM, volumetric imaging is crucial and should replace 2D radiographs for carbon therapy of stage I lung cancer.
AB - Background and purpose: Patient positioning was compared by tumor matching (TM) and conventional bony structure matching (BM) in carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer to evaluate the robustness of TM and BM in determining interfractional error. Material and methods: Sixty irradiation fields were analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) images acquired before treatment initiation for confirmation (Conf-CT) were obtained under the same settings as the treatment planning CT images and used to evaluate both positioning methods. The dose distributions were recalculated for Conf-CT using both BM and TM, and the dose–volume histogram parameters [V95% of clinical target volume, V5Gy(RBE) of normal lung, and acceptance ratio (ratio of cases with V95% > 95%)] were evaluated. The required margin, which in 90% of cases achieved the acceptable condition, was also examined. Results: Using BM and TM, the median V95% was 98.93% and 100% (p < 0.001) and the mean V5Gy(RBE) was 135.9 and 125.8 (p = 0.694), respectively. The estimated required margins were 7.9 and 3.3 mm and increased by 53.9% and 2.5% of V5Gy(RBE), respectively, compared with planning. Conclusions: TM ensured a better dose distribution than did BM. To enable TM, volumetric imaging is crucial and should replace 2D radiographs for carbon therapy of stage I lung cancer.
KW - Bone matching
KW - Carbon ion radiotherapy
KW - Lung cancer
KW - Patient positioning
KW - Tumor matching
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033710035&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.003
DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.003
M3 - 学術論文
C2 - 29100701
AN - SCOPUS:85033710035
SN - 0167-8140
VL - 129
SP - 95
EP - 100
JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology
JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology
IS - 1
ER -