7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Uncertainty in the positioning of patients receiving treatment for brain metastases and wearing surgical mask underneath thermoplastic mask during COVID‐19 crisis

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Thermoplastic masks, used along with surgical masks, enable immobilization methods to reduce the risk of infection in patients undergoing intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) during the COVID‐19 crisis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of thermoplastic mask immobilization with a surgical mask using an ExacTrac system. Twelve patients each with brain metastases were immobilized using a thermoplastic mask and a surgical mask and only a thermoplastic mask. Two x‐ray images were acquired to correct (XC) and verify (XV) the patient’s position at a couch angle of 0°. Subsequently, the XC and XV images were acquired at each planned couch angle for non‐coplanar beams. When the position errors were detected after couch rotation for non‐coplanar beams, the errors were corrected at each planned couch angle until a clinically acceptable tolerance was attained. The position errors in the translational and rotational directions (vertical, lateral, longitudinal, pitch, roll, and yaw) were retrospectively investigated using data from the ExacTrac system database. A standard deviation of XC translational and rotational position errors with and without a surgical mask in the lateral (1.52 vs 2.07 mm), longitudinal (1.59 vs 1.87 mm), vertical (1.00 vs 1.73 mm), pitch (0.99 vs 0.79°), roll (1.24 vs 0.68°), and yaw (1.58 vs 0.90°) directions were observed at a couch angle of 0°. Most of patient positioning errors were less than 1.0 mm or 1.0° after the couch was rotated to the planned angle for non‐coplanar beams. The overall absolute values of the translational and rotational XV position errors with and without the surgical mask were less than 0.5 mm and 0.5°, respectively. This study showed that a thermoplastic mask with a surgical mask is a feasible immobilization technique for brain SRS/SRT patients using the ExacTrac system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          To frame or not to frame? Cone‐beam CT‐based analysis of head immobilization devices specific to linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy

          Abstract Purpose Noninvasive frameless systems are increasingly being utilized for head immobilization in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Knowing the head positioning reproducibility of frameless systems and their respective ability to limit intrafractional head motion is important in order to safely perform SRS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the intrafractional head motion of an invasive frame and a series of frameless systems for single fraction SRS and fractionated/hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT/HF‐SRT). Methods The noninvasive PinPoint system was used on 15 HF‐SRT and 21 SRS patients. Intrafractional motion for these patients was compared to 15 SRS patients immobilized with Cosman‐Roberts‐Wells (CRW) frame, and a FSRT population that respectively included 23, 32, and 15 patients immobilized using Gill‐Thomas‐Cosman (GTC) frame, Uniframe, and Orfit. All HF‐SRT and FSRT patients were treated using intensity‐modulated radiation therapy on a linear accelerator equipped with cone‐beam CT (CBCT) and a robotic couch. SRS patients were treated using gantry‐mounted stereotactic cones. The CBCT image‐guidance protocol included initial setup, pretreatment and post‐treatment verification images. The residual error determined from the post‐treatment CBCT was used as a surrogate for intrafractional head motion during treatment. Results The mean intrafractional motion over all fractions with PinPoint was 0.62 ± 0.33 mm and 0.45 ± 0.33 mm, respectively, for the HF‐SRT and SRS cohort of patients (P‐value = 0.266). For CRW, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, the mean intrafractional motions were 0.30 ± 0.21 mm, 0.54 ± 0.76 mm, 0.73 ± 0.49 mm, and 0.76 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. For CRW, PinPoint, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, intrafractional motion exceeded 1.5 mm in 0%, 0%, 5%, 6%, and 8% of all fractions treated, respectively. Conclusions The noninvasive PinPoint system and the invasive CRW frame stringently limit cranial intrafractional motion, while the latter provides superior immobilization. Based on the results of this study, our clinical practice for malignant tumors has evolved to apply an invasive CRW frame only for metastases in eloquent locations to minimize normal tissue exposure.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Minimal mask immobilization with optical surface guidance for head and neck radiotherapy

            Abstract Purpose Full face and neck thermoplastic masks provide standard‐of‐care immobilization for patients receiving H&N IMRT. However, these masks are uncomfortable and increase skin dose. The purpose of this pilot trial was to investigate the feasibility and setup accuracy of minimal face and neck mask immobilization with optical surface guidance. Methods Twenty patients enrolled onto this IRB‐approved protocol. Patients were immobilized with masks securing only forehead and chin. Shoulder movement was restricted by either moldable cushion or hand held strap retractors. Positional information, including isocenter location and CT skin contours, were imported to a commercial surface image guidance system. Patients typically received standard‐of‐care IMRT to 60–70 Gy in 30–33 fractions. Patients were first set up to surface markings with optical image guidance referenced to regions of interest (ROIs) on simulation CT images. Positioning was confirmed by in‐room CBCT. Following six‐dimensional robotic couch correction, a new optical real‐time surface image was acquired to track intrafraction motion and to serve as a reference surface for setup at the next treatment fraction. Therapists manually recorded total treatment time as well as couch shifts based on kV imaging. Intrafractional ROI motion tracking was automatically recorded by the optical image guidance system. Patient comfort was assessed by self‐administered surveys. Results Setup error was measured as six‐dimensional shifts (vertical/longitudinal/lateral/rotation/pitch/roll). Mean error values were −0.51 ± 2.42 mm, −0.49 ± 3.30 mm, 0.23 ± 2.58 mm, −0.15 ± 1.01o, −0.02 ± 1.19o, and 0.06 ± 1.08o, respectively. Average treatment time was 21.6 ± 8.4 mins). Subjective comfort during surface‐guided treatment was confirmed on patient surveys. Conclusion These pilot results confirm feasibility of minimal mask immobilization combined with commercially available optical image guidance. Patient acceptance of minimal mask immobilization has been encouraging. Follow‐up validation, with direct comparison to standard mask immobilization, appears warranted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Monitoring frequency of intra‐fraction patient motion using the ExacTrac system for LINAC ‐based SRS treatments

              Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the intra‐fractional patient motion using the ExacTrac system in LINAC‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Method A retrospective analysis of 104 SRS patients with kilovoltage image‐guided setup (Brainlab ExacTrac) data was performed. Each patient was imaged pre‐treatment, and at two time points during treatment (1st and 2nd mid‐treatment), and bony anatomy of the skull was used to establish setup error at each time point. The datasets included the translational and rotational setup error, as well as the time period between image acquisitions. After each image acquisition, the patient was repositioned using the calculated shift to correct the setup error. Only translational errors were corrected due to the absence of a 6D treatment table. Setup time and directional shift values were analyzed to determine correlation between shift magnitudes as well as time between acquisitions. Results The average magnitude translation was 0.64 ± 0.59 mm, 0.79 ± 0.45 mm, and 0.65 ± 0.35 mm for the pre‐treatment, 1st mid‐treatment, and 2nd mid‐treatment imaging time points. The average time from pre‐treatment image acquisition to 1st mid‐treatment image acquisition was 7.98 ± 0.45 min, from 1st to 2nd mid‐treatment image was 4.87 ± 1.96 min. The greatest translation was 3.64 mm, occurring in the pre‐treatment image. No patient had a 1st or 2nd mid‐treatment image with greater than 2 mm magnitude shifts. Conclusion There was no correlation between patient motion over time, in direction or magnitude, and duration of treatment. The imaging frequency could be reduced to decrease imaging dose and treatment time without significant changes in patient position.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                miura@hiprac.jp
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                24 May 2021
                June 2021
                : 22
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.v22.6 )
                : 274-280
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Hiroshima High‐Precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center Hiroshima 732‐0057 Japan
                [ 2 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences Hiroshima University Hiroshima 739‐8511 Japan
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Hideharu Miura

                Email: miura@ 123456hiprac.jp ;

                Telephone: +81‐082‐263‐1330;

                Fax: +81‐082‐263‐1331.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5473-4956
                Article
                ACM213279
                10.1002/acm2.13279
                8200509
                34028970
                6c111013-c93f-415a-9d02-41654d54c044
                © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 April 2021
                : 17 December 2020
                : 20 April 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, Pages: 7, Words: 3987
                Categories
                87.55.%2212x
                87.55.kh
                Technical Note
                Technical Notes
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:14.06.2021

                covid‐19,image guidance,immobilization,patient positioning error,surgical mask

                Comments

                Comment on this article