PMID- 22044812
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20120510
LR  - 20161125
IS  - 1998-4138 (Electronic)
IS  - 1998-4138 (Linking)
VI  - 7
IP  - 3
DP  - 2011 Jul-Sep
TI  - A comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of on board imaging with cone beam 
      CT using target registration in patients with lung tumors undergoing stereotactic 
      body radiation therapy and comparison with ExacTrac using skeletal registration 
      on Novalis Tx.
PG  - 304-7
LID - 10.4103/0973-1482.87029 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy is an advanced technique, which 
      delivers ablative doses to lung lesions. Target verification is done either by 
      orthogonal x-rays or cone beam CT. This study was undertaken to compare these two 
      verification methods. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ExacTrac and Cone Beam 
      Computed Tomography (CBCT) for target repositioning while delivering Stereotactic 
      Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for lung lesions and derive the population-based 
      margin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had undergone SBRT for lung 
      lesions from February to September 2009 were involved. Patients were immobilized 
      using the BodyFix double vacuum immobilization system, indexed to the computed 
      tomography (CT) simulator and treatment machine. Four-dimensional (3-D) scan was 
      done to generate internal target volume (ITV) and a free breathing CT scan for 
      planning was done on the BrainLab iPlan 4.1 software. During treatment, patient's 
      position was verified using ExacTrac and CBCT. The resulting vertical, lateral, 
      and longitudinal shifts were noted. The random and systematic error were 
      calculated and the margin recipe derived using the Van Herk formula. RESULTS: 
      Sixteen patients had undergone SBRT for lung tumors from February to September 
      2009. Data from eight patients who had undergone 34 sessions of SBRT was 
      analyzed. The systematic error for lateral, longitudinal, and vertical shifts for 
      ExacTrac and CBCT were 3.68, 4.27, 3.5 mm and 0.53, 0.38, 0.70 mm, respectively. 
      The random error were 1.10, 1.51, 1.96 mm and 0.32, 0.81, 0.59 mm. The lateral, 
      longitudinal and vertical Van Herk margin recipe for ExacTrac were 9.98, 11.72, 
      10.18 mm, respectively, and for CBCT was 2.17, 1.53,1.55 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The 
      systematic and random errors for CBCT were significantly lesser as compared to 
      the errors with Exactrac.
FAU - Ram, Thomas S
AU  - Ram TS
AD  - Department of Radiation Oncology, Unit 1, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 
      Tamil Nadu, India. cmcvellore.ac.in
FAU - Badkul, Rajeev
AU  - Badkul R
FAU - Maraboyina, Sanjay
AU  - Maraboyina S
FAU - Wang, Fen
AU  - Wang F
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - India
TA  - J Cancer Res Ther
JT  - Journal of cancer research and therapeutics
JID - 101249598
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - *Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
MH  - Female
MH  - Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
MH  - Humans
MH  - Lung/diagnostic imaging/pathology
MH  - Lung Neoplasms/*radiotherapy
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - *Radiosurgery
MH  - Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/*methods
EDAT- 2011/11/03 06:00
MHDA- 2012/05/11 06:00
CRDT- 2011/11/03 06:00
PHST- 2011/11/03 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/11/03 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2012/05/11 06:00 [medline]
AID - JCanResTher_2011_7_3_304_87029 [pii]
AID - 10.4103/0973-1482.87029 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Cancer Res Ther. 2011 Jul-Sep;7(3):304-7. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.87029.