[국내논문]유방암 환자의 모의치료, CT 스캔 및 치료 과정에서 발생되는 준비 오차 분석 Analysis of Set-up Errors during CT-scan, Simulation, and Treatment Process in Breast Cancer Patients원문보기
목적: 방사선 치료 시 3차원 영상 획득에 방사선치료 전용으로 개발된 모의 CT를 사용하고 있으나 아직까지도 많은 병원에서는 일반 진단용 CT를 이용하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 21명의 유방암 환자를 대상으로 모의치료, 진단용 CT기를 이용한 CT 스캔, 및 치료 과정 사이의 준비 오차를 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 준비 오차는 isocenter, SSD, CLD, 및 수술 시 삽입된 클립의 위치들의 변화를 계산하여 분석하였다. 모의조사에서 얻어진 x-ray 영상에 나타난 해부학적 구조물과 CT 스캔 시 isocenter를 표시하기 위해 환자의 몸에 부착된 marker를 기준으로 정해진 isocenter에서 얻은 DRR 영상상의 구조물을 비교하여 잘 일치하지 않을 경우 새로운 isocenter가 정해졌고 이러한 isocenter의 위치 변화를 계산하였다. 결과: 21명의 환자 중 7명의 경우 DRR상과 모의치료 필름상의 해부학적 구조물이 21명의 환자 중 7명이 일치하지 않았으므로 치료계획을 실행하기에 앞서 새로운 isocenter를 정하였다. Isocenter 이동을 근거로 계산된 진단용 CT와 모의 치료간에 발생되는 평균 준비오차의 표준편차는 횡측 방향으로 2.3 mm, longitudinal 방향으로 1.6 mm, 그리고 AP 방향으로 1.6 mm이다. 모의치료와 CT data의 AP 방향 및 tangential 방향에서 측정된 SSD 값의 평균오차 및 표준편차는 각각 $1.9{\pm}2.3\;mm$ 및 $2.8{\pm}3.7\;mm$이다. 모의치료와 DRR간의 CLD 오차의 변화범위는 0에서 6 mm 이고 모의치료와 portal 영상간의 오차범위는 0에서 5 mm이다. 클립을 기준으로 계산된 그룹의 systematic error는 횡측 방향으로 1.7 mm, AP 방향으로 2.1 mm, 그리고 SI 방향으로 1.7 mm이다. 결론: 연구 결과 SSD, CLD, 클립의 움직임 및 isocenter의 위치변화 측면에서 분석될 경우 그다지 큰 오차는 발생하지 않았음을 보여준다. 그러므로 본 연구결과 유방암 환자의 경우 진단용 CT를 사용한다 하더라도 준비오차는 모의 CT를 사용하는 경우와 비교하여 차이가 없음을 알 수 있다. 그러나 모의치료와 CT스캔 사이의 준비오차를 감소하기 위해서는 CT 영상 획득 시 환자 위치고정에 특별한 주의를 기울여야 한다.
목적: 방사선 치료 시 3차원 영상 획득에 방사선치료 전용으로 개발된 모의 CT를 사용하고 있으나 아직까지도 많은 병원에서는 일반 진단용 CT를 이용하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 21명의 유방암 환자를 대상으로 모의치료, 진단용 CT기를 이용한 CT 스캔, 및 치료 과정 사이의 준비 오차를 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 준비 오차는 isocenter, SSD, CLD, 및 수술 시 삽입된 클립의 위치들의 변화를 계산하여 분석하였다. 모의조사에서 얻어진 x-ray 영상에 나타난 해부학적 구조물과 CT 스캔 시 isocenter를 표시하기 위해 환자의 몸에 부착된 marker를 기준으로 정해진 isocenter에서 얻은 DRR 영상상의 구조물을 비교하여 잘 일치하지 않을 경우 새로운 isocenter가 정해졌고 이러한 isocenter의 위치 변화를 계산하였다. 결과: 21명의 환자 중 7명의 경우 DRR상과 모의치료 필름상의 해부학적 구조물이 21명의 환자 중 7명이 일치하지 않았으므로 치료계획을 실행하기에 앞서 새로운 isocenter를 정하였다. Isocenter 이동을 근거로 계산된 진단용 CT와 모의 치료간에 발생되는 평균 준비오차의 표준편차는 횡측 방향으로 2.3 mm, longitudinal 방향으로 1.6 mm, 그리고 AP 방향으로 1.6 mm이다. 모의치료와 CT data의 AP 방향 및 tangential 방향에서 측정된 SSD 값의 평균오차 및 표준편차는 각각 $1.9{\pm}2.3\;mm$ 및 $2.8{\pm}3.7\;mm$이다. 모의치료와 DRR간의 CLD 오차의 변화범위는 0에서 6 mm 이고 모의치료와 portal 영상간의 오차범위는 0에서 5 mm이다. 클립을 기준으로 계산된 그룹의 systematic error는 횡측 방향으로 1.7 mm, AP 방향으로 2.1 mm, 그리고 SI 방향으로 1.7 mm이다. 결론: 연구 결과 SSD, CLD, 클립의 움직임 및 isocenter의 위치변화 측면에서 분석될 경우 그다지 큰 오차는 발생하지 않았음을 보여준다. 그러므로 본 연구결과 유방암 환자의 경우 진단용 CT를 사용한다 하더라도 준비오차는 모의 CT를 사용하는 경우와 비교하여 차이가 없음을 알 수 있다. 그러나 모의치료와 CT스캔 사이의 준비오차를 감소하기 위해서는 CT 영상 획득 시 환자 위치고정에 특별한 주의를 기울여야 한다.
Purpose: Although computed tomography (CT) simulators are commonly used in radiation therapy department, many Institution still use conventional CT for treatments. In this study the setup errors that occur during simulation, CT scan (diagnostic CT scanner), and treatment were evaluated for the twent...
Purpose: Although computed tomography (CT) simulators are commonly used in radiation therapy department, many Institution still use conventional CT for treatments. In this study the setup errors that occur during simulation, CT scan (diagnostic CT scanner), and treatment were evaluated for the twenty one breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Errors were determined by calculating the differences in isocenter location, SSD, CLD, and locations of surgical clips implanted during surgery. The anatomic structures on simulation film and DRR image were compared to determine the movement of isocenter between simulation and CT scan. The isocetner point determined from the radio-opaque wires placed on patient's surface during CT scan was moved to new position if there was anatomic mismatch between the two images Results: In 7/21 patients, anatomic structures on DRR Image were different from the simulation Image thus new isocenter points were placed for treatment planning. The standard deviations of the diagnostic CT setup errors relative to the simulator setup in lateral, longitudinal, and anterior-posterior directions were 2.3, 1.6, and 1.6 mm, respectively. The average variation and standard deviation of SSD from AP field were 1.9 mm and 2.3 mm and from tangential fields were 2.8 mm and 3.7 mm. The variation of the CLD for the 21 patients ranged from 0 to 6 mm between simulation and DRR and 0 to 5 mm between simulation and treatment. The group systematic errors analyzed based on clip locations were 1.7 mm in lateral direction, 2.1 mm in AP direction, and 1.7 mm in SI direction. Conclusion: These results represent that there was no significant differences when SSD, CLD, clips' locations and isocenter locations were considered. Therefore, it is concluded that when a diagnostic CT scanner is used to acquire an image, the set-up variation is acceptable compared to using CT simulator for the treatment of breast cancer. However, the patient has to be positioned with care during CT scan in order to reduce the setup error between simulation and CT scan.
Purpose: Although computed tomography (CT) simulators are commonly used in radiation therapy department, many Institution still use conventional CT for treatments. In this study the setup errors that occur during simulation, CT scan (diagnostic CT scanner), and treatment were evaluated for the twenty one breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Errors were determined by calculating the differences in isocenter location, SSD, CLD, and locations of surgical clips implanted during surgery. The anatomic structures on simulation film and DRR image were compared to determine the movement of isocenter between simulation and CT scan. The isocetner point determined from the radio-opaque wires placed on patient's surface during CT scan was moved to new position if there was anatomic mismatch between the two images Results: In 7/21 patients, anatomic structures on DRR Image were different from the simulation Image thus new isocenter points were placed for treatment planning. The standard deviations of the diagnostic CT setup errors relative to the simulator setup in lateral, longitudinal, and anterior-posterior directions were 2.3, 1.6, and 1.6 mm, respectively. The average variation and standard deviation of SSD from AP field were 1.9 mm and 2.3 mm and from tangential fields were 2.8 mm and 3.7 mm. The variation of the CLD for the 21 patients ranged from 0 to 6 mm between simulation and DRR and 0 to 5 mm between simulation and treatment. The group systematic errors analyzed based on clip locations were 1.7 mm in lateral direction, 2.1 mm in AP direction, and 1.7 mm in SI direction. Conclusion: These results represent that there was no significant differences when SSD, CLD, clips' locations and isocenter locations were considered. Therefore, it is concluded that when a diagnostic CT scanner is used to acquire an image, the set-up variation is acceptable compared to using CT simulator for the treatment of breast cancer. However, the patient has to be positioned with care during CT scan in order to reduce the setup error between simulation and CT scan.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Computed tomography (CT) scans were followed to acquire 5 mm images from 10 cm above the upper border and 10 cm below the lower border of the breast tangent fields. At the time of the patient's CT scan, radio-opaque markers were placed on the patient's skin to identify the isocenter and field edges determined at simulation.
A conventional simulation was undertaken and simulation films were obtained at gantry zero position and medial tangential directions. Computed tomography (CT) scans were followed to acquire 5 mm images from 10 cm above the upper border and 10 cm below the lower border of the breast tangent fields. At the time of the patient's CT scan, radio-opaque markers were placed on the patient's skin to identify the isocenter and field edges determined at simulation.
Maximum difference of 16 mm in tangential direction was observed for the patient 18. Considering many parameters such as anatomy matching, CLD, SSD in AP direction and patient position, the difference was caused by mistake in reading the SSD values during simulation. These results represents that at least 5% of error (1/21 patients) in measuring treatment depth could occur if SSD is measured by a therapist during conventional simulation.
For each patient, CT images were imported into 3D treatment planning system (Pinnacle, Philips Medical, Milpitas, CA). Radiation isocenter point and the border of the treatment fields were outlined based on the landmark attached during CT scans.
In this study, setup errors that occur during simulation, CT scan, and treatment process were evaluated by calculating setup differences in isocenter location, source to surface distance (SSD), central axis lung distance (CLD), and clip positions.
The movement of isocenter point was measured.Set up errors between diagnostic CT scan and simulation were analyzed by calculating the mean error and standard deviation in lateral (left and right), longitudinal (superior and inferior), and AP directions.
대상 데이터
The CLD values measured from simulation film ranged from 12 mm to 27 mm for the 21 patients. When it is measured from DRR image and portal film, the values were ranged from 11 mm to 26 mm and 10 mm to 22 mm, respectively (Fig.
1 nun (SI). The SD of the systematic error between simulations and CT scans for the 21 patients were 2.3 nun in lateral, 1.6 mm in AP, and 1.6 mm in SI directions. Although isocenter dislocation was not necessary in most of the patients, it is still required to check the location of iso-center by comparing the anatomic structures on simulation film and DRR image after the CT image is imported into the planning system.
Twenty-one breast cancer patients with invasive carcinomas of the breast, who had previously undergone lumpectomy, were selected for the study. As shown in Fig.
데이터처리
The differences in clip positions determined from simulation film and CT image were calculated in lateral, AP, and longitudinal directions. Based on the difference, systematic error was obtained to determine PTV margin contributed from setup error between simulation and CT scan.
성능/효과
4 cm. The group mean errors and the SD of the SSD values in AP direction were 1.9 and 2.3 mm and 2.8 and 3.7 mm in medial tangential direction. Slightly large group mean error was found in medial tangential direction as compared to AP direction.
The movements of the clips between simulation and CT scan were not significant and the variation of the clip location was less than 5mm in 1/121 clips in lateral direction, 7/121 in AP direction, and 1/121 in SI directions. The group systematic error which is just overall mean error in lateral, AP, and SI directions are 1.7 mm, 2.1 mm, and 1.7 mm, respectively. The SD of the CT setup error calculated from the clips in lateral, AP, and SI directions are 1.
참고문헌 (18)
ICRU Report 62: Prescribing, recording, and reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Inthernational Commission in Radiation Units and Mesurement, Bethesda, MD 1995
Kitamura K, Shirato H, Seppenwoolde Y, et al. Threedimensional intrafractional movement of prostate measured during real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy in supine and prone treatment position. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53:1117-1123
Horst E, Micke O, Moustakis C, Schuck A, Schafer U, Willich NA. Conformal therapy for pancreatic cancer: variation of organ position due to gastrointerstinal distention-implications for treatment planning. Radiology 2002;222:681-686
Giraud P, De Rycke Y, Dubray B, et al. Conformal radiotherapy (CRT) planning for lung cancer: analysis of intrathoracic organ motion during extreme phases of breathing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:1081-1092
Yan D, Wong J, Vicini F, et al. Adaptive modification of treatment planning to minimize the deleterious effects of treatment setup errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38: 197-206
Hanley J, Lumley MA, Mageras GS, et al. Measurement of patient positioning errors in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;37:435-444
Astreinidou E, Bel A, Raajjmakers CP, et al. Adequate margins for random setup uncertainties in head-and-neck IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:938-944
Alasti H, Petric MP, Catton CN, et al. Portal imaging for evaluation of daily on-line setup errors and off-line organ motion during conformal irradiation of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:869-884
de Boer HC, van Sornsen de Koste JR, Senan S, et al. Analysis and reduction of 3D systematic and random setup errors during the simulation and treatment of lung cancer patients with CT-based external beam radiotherapy dose planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:857-868
Bijhold J, Lebesque JV, Hart AM, et al. Maximizing seup accuracy using portal images as applied to a conformal boost technique for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 1992; 24:261-271
Stroom JC, de Boer JC, Huizenga H, et al. Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:905-919
Smith RP, Bloch P, Harris EE, et al. Analysis of interfraction and intrafraction variation during tangential breast irradiation with an electronic portal imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:373-378
Valdagani R, Italia C. Early cancer irradiation after conservative surgery: quality control by portal localization films. Radiather Oncol 1991;22:341-343
Balter JM, Ten Haken RK, Lawrence TS, et al. Uncertainties in CT-based radiation therapy reatment planning associated with patient breating. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;36:164-174
Kukolowicz PF, Debrowski A, Gut P, et al. Evaluation of set-up deviations during the irradiation of patients suffering from breast cancer treated with two different techniques. Radiother Oncol 2005;75:22-27
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.