首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics >Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer.
【24h】

Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer.

机译:每日兆伏电子门成像或千伏成像与标记物的比较与超声成像或皮肤标记在前列腺癌患者中的前列腺定位和治疗定位的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. RESULTS: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 +/- 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 +/- 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 +/- 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 +/- 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 +/- 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 +/- 1.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.
机译:目的:比较前列腺癌患者的影像检查,固定,定位和定位技术的准确性。方法和材料:35例前列腺癌患者经直肠植入金标记种子,并接受分级放疗。 35名患者中有20名固定受限;其余的是基于真空的固定装置。病人的定位包括对准皮肤的激光,超声或千伏X射线成像,使用红外反射器的光学引导以及兆伏电子门成像(EPI)。将每种定位技术的差异与根据治疗前EPI确定的患者位置进行比较。结果:在固定不动的情况下,皮肤标记的激光位置与EPI预处理位置之间的平均差为9.1 +/- 5.3 mm,皮肤标记的红外位置与EPI预处理位置之间的平均差为11.8 +/- 7.2 mm,超声位置和EPI预处理位置之间的平均差异为7.0 +/- 4.6毫米,kV成像和EPI预处理位置之间的平均差异为3.5 +/- 3.1毫米,治疗过程中平均眼内移动为3.4 +/- 2.7毫米对于采用真空方式固定的患者,皮肤标记的激光位置与EPI预处理位置之间的平均差为10.7 +/- 4.6 mm,kV成像与EPI预处理位置之间的平均差为1.9 +/- 1.5 mm,在治疗过程中平均分数运动为2.1 +/- 1.5毫米。结论:与使用皮肤标记相比,超声成像定位与基于EPI的定位的一致性更高,尽管不如kV成像基准种子好。随着固定性的提高,治疗过程中的分数运动减少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号