Submit Your Article CMED MEACR meeting
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 67
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 621-626

Comparison of setup errors based on bony landmarks in high precision radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: Results of a prospective study

Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India, india

Correspondence Address:
Saikat Das
DMRT, MD, DNB, MNAMS, Associate Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore - 632 004, India.
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Nil., Conflict of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

DOI: 10.4103/2278-0513.164721

Rights and Permissions

Background: Comparison of setup errors for various immobilization devices in head and neck cancer and to determine the treatment margin in high precision radiotherapy using bony landmark based matching. Materials and Methods: Total 20 patients were immobilized with BrainLAB immobilization device (BL) or thermoplastic ray cast (RC) for high precision radiotherapy. Total, systematic, and random errors in mediolateral (ML), craniocaudal (CC) and antero-posterior directions were determined and clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin by Stroom's formula was compared. Unpaired t-test was used for comparing errors. The standard deviations (systematic and random errors) in different groups were compared by variance ratio test (Levene's test) and P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The total error in ML direction (BL vs. RC) was 1.00 mm versus 1.39 mm (P = 0.03), systematic error 0.09 cm versus 0.197 cm and random error 0.116 cm versus 0.258 cm (F-test, P = 0.001). CTV to PTV margin was significantly lower in BL (0.26 cm vs. 0.57 cm, P < 0.05). In CC direction, BL system had lower total error (0.075 cm vs. 0.157 cm) and a significantly less systematic error (0.116 cm vs. 0.258 cm, F = 7.149, P = 0.015). CTV to PTV margin was less in BL than RC in CC direction (0.34 cm vs. 0.92 cm, P = 0.06). Conclusion: In head and neck region, when electronic portal imaging device based verification is used, for BL margins ranged from 2.6 to 3.7 mm. For RC in the PTV margin was 5.7–9.2 mm. Therefore, a margin of 3 mm for BL and 5–10 mm for RC with online correction in head and neck is adequate.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal