Purpose: To determine the use of surgical clips as a surrogate for localization of the excision cavity and to quantify the stability of the clips' positions during the course of external beam... Show morePurpose: To determine the use of surgical clips as a surrogate for localization of the excision cavity and to quantify the stability of the clips' positions during the course of external beam radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.Methods and Materials: Twenty-one breast cancer patients with surgical clips placed in the breast excision cavity were treated in a supine position with 28 daily fractions. CBCT scans were regularly acquired for a setup correction protocol. Retrospectively, the CBCT scans were registered to the planning CT scans, using gray-value registration of the excision cavity region and chamfer matching of the clips. Subsequently, residual setup errors (systematic [Sigma] and random [sigma]) of the excision cavity were estimated relative to the clips' registration. Finally, the stability of the clips' positions were quantified as the movement of each separate clip according to the center of gravity of the excision cavity.Results: When clips were used for online setup corrections, the residual errors of the excision cavity were Sigma(left-right) = 1.2, sigma(left-right) = 1.0; Sigma(cranial-caudal) = 1.3, sigma(cranial-caudal) = 1.2; and Sigma(anterior-posterior) = 0.7, sigma(anterior-posterior) = 0.9 mm. Furthermore, the average distance (over all patients) between the clips and centers of gravity of the excision cavities was 18.8 mm (on the planning CT) and was reduced to 17.4 mm (measured on the last CBCT scan).Conclusion: Clips move in the direction of the center of gravity of the excision cavity, on average, 1.4 mm. The clips are good surrogates for locating the excision cavity and providing small residual errors. (c) 2011 Elsevier Inc. Show less
Topolnjak, R.; Sonke, J.J.; Nijkamp, J.; Rasch, C.; Minkema, D.; Remeijer, P.; Vliet-Vroegindeweij, C. van 2010
Purpose: To quantify the differences in setup errors measured with the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and electronic portal image devices (EPID) in breast cancer patients.Methods and... Show morePurpose: To quantify the differences in setup errors measured with the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and electronic portal image devices (EPID) in breast cancer patients.Methods and Materials: Repeat CBCT scan were acquired for routine offline setup verification in 20 breast cancer patients. During the CBCT imaging fractions, EPID images of the treatment beams were recorded. Registrations of the bony anatomy for CBCT to planning CT and EPID to digitally reconstructed-radiographs (DRRs) were compared. In addition, similar measurements of an anthropomorphic thorax phantom were acquired. Bland-Altman and linear regression analysis were performed for clinical and phantom registrations. Systematic and random setup errors were quantified for CBCT and EPID-driven correction protocols in the EPID coordinate system (U, V), with V parallel to the cranial-caudal axis and U perpendicular to V and the central beam axis.Results: Bland-Altman analysis of clinical EPID and CBCT registrations yielded 4 to 6-mm limits of agreement, indicating that both methods were not compatible. The EPID-based setup errors were smaller than the CBCT-based setup errors. Phantom measurements showed that CBCT accurately measures setup error whereas EPID underestimates setup errors in the cranial caudal direction. In the clinical measurements, the residual bony anatomy setup errors after offline CBCT-based corrections were Sigma(U) = 1.4 mm, Sigma(V) = 1.7 mm, and sigma(U) = 2.6 mm, sigma(V) = 3.1 mm. Residual setup errors of EPID driven corrections corrected for underestimation were estimated at Sigma(U) = 2.2mm, Sigma(V) = 3.3 mm, and sigma(U) = 2.9 mm, sigma(V) = 2.9 mm.Conclusion: EPID registration underestimated the actual bony anatomy setup error in breast cancer patients by 20% to 50%. Using CBCT decreased setup uncertainties significantly. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. Show less
