J Liu, M Ma, Q Wang, M Shi, J Yin, Z Wang, J Shen, X Gao
{"title":"[基于锥束计算机断层扫描的前列腺癌放疗中两种固定方法的设置误差比较]。","authors":"J Liu, M Ma, Q Wang, M Shi, J Yin, Z Wang, J Shen, X Gao","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze and compare the interfractional setup errors between two body positioning fixation methods (lithotomy position with carbon fiber full-body fixation frame <i>vs</i>. conventional carbon fiber body fixation frame combined with thermoplastic membrane) in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and to calculate the clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin (MPTV) for both methods to optimize immobilization techniques and radiotherapy workflows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 37 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostate radiotherapy at Peking University First Hospital between August 2021 and March 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the immobilization method: Group A (18 patients, 450 CBCT image sets) used a carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position, while Group B (19 patients, 461 CBCT image sets) used a conventional carbon fiber fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask. All the patients underwent daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance. Bone registration combined with manual registration was used to obtain the setup error data in the left-right (<i>X</i>), cranio-caudal (<i>Y</i>) and anterior-posterior (<i>Z</i>) directions. The positioning errors of the two groups were compared by using the independent sample <i>t</i>-test, the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test and the chi-square test. The average positioning error, systematic positioning error (<i>Σ</i>) and random positioning error (<i>δ</i>) were calculated, and the CTV-PTV extension distance was calculated by using the (MPTV=2.5<i>Σ</i>+0.7<i>δ</i>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of the setup errors in the three-dimensional direction showed significant differences between the two groups (all <i>P</i> < 0.01). Specifically, the median (quartile) absolute values of the errors in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions of group A were [0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm, 0.50 (0.30, 0.80) cm, and 0.35 (0.20, 0.60) cm], respectively. In group B, the corresponding values were significantly reduced to [0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm, 0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm and 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm]. The results of Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test showed that the differences in each direction were highly statistically significant (<i>X</i>: <i>z</i>=-6.86; <i>Y</i>: <i>z</i>=-2.76; <i>Z</i>: <i>z</i>=-5.71). The cumulative distribution ratio of the setup error displacement within 0.5 cm in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions in group A and group B were 297 (66.0%) and 408 (88.5%) (<i>P</i> < 0.01), 250 (55.6%) and 285 (61.8%) (<i>P</i>=0.055), 308 (68.4%) and 391 (84.8%) (<i>P</i> < 0.01), respectively. The CTV-PTV margins in three directions were <i>X</i> 0.66 cm in group A and 0.35 cm in group B; <i>Y</i> 0.67 cm and 0.45 cm; <i>Z</i> 0.54 cm and 0.42 cm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional carbon fiber human body fixator combined with thermoplastic film can significantly reduce the setup error. However, the carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position demonstrated larger setup errors in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions compared with the conventional fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask, indicating the need for further workflow optimization. Given that the lithotomy position is essential for transperineal ultrasound-guided techniques, further research and improvements are required to achieve higher positioning accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":8790,"journal":{"name":"北京大学学报(医学版)","volume":"57 4","pages":"692-697"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12330908/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparison of setup errors between two immobilization methods in prostate cancer radiotherapy based on cone-beam computed tomography].\",\"authors\":\"J Liu, M Ma, Q Wang, M Shi, J Yin, Z Wang, J Shen, X Gao\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze and compare the interfractional setup errors between two body positioning fixation methods (lithotomy position with carbon fiber full-body fixation frame <i>vs</i>. conventional carbon fiber body fixation frame combined with thermoplastic membrane) in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and to calculate the clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin (MPTV) for both methods to optimize immobilization techniques and radiotherapy workflows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 37 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostate radiotherapy at Peking University First Hospital between August 2021 and March 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the immobilization method: Group A (18 patients, 450 CBCT image sets) used a carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position, while Group B (19 patients, 461 CBCT image sets) used a conventional carbon fiber fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask. All the patients underwent daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance. Bone registration combined with manual registration was used to obtain the setup error data in the left-right (<i>X</i>), cranio-caudal (<i>Y</i>) and anterior-posterior (<i>Z</i>) directions. The positioning errors of the two groups were compared by using the independent sample <i>t</i>-test, the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test and the chi-square test. The average positioning error, systematic positioning error (<i>Σ</i>) and random positioning error (<i>δ</i>) were calculated, and the CTV-PTV extension distance was calculated by using the (MPTV=2.5<i>Σ</i>+0.7<i>δ</i>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of the setup errors in the three-dimensional direction showed significant differences between the two groups (all <i>P</i> < 0.01). Specifically, the median (quartile) absolute values of the errors in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions of group A were [0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm, 0.50 (0.30, 0.80) cm, and 0.35 (0.20, 0.60) cm], respectively. In group B, the corresponding values were significantly reduced to [0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm, 0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm and 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm]. The results of Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test showed that the differences in each direction were highly statistically significant (<i>X</i>: <i>z</i>=-6.86; <i>Y</i>: <i>z</i>=-2.76; <i>Z</i>: <i>z</i>=-5.71). The cumulative distribution ratio of the setup error displacement within 0.5 cm in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions in group A and group B were 297 (66.0%) and 408 (88.5%) (<i>P</i> < 0.01), 250 (55.6%) and 285 (61.8%) (<i>P</i>=0.055), 308 (68.4%) and 391 (84.8%) (<i>P</i> < 0.01), respectively. The CTV-PTV margins in three directions were <i>X</i> 0.66 cm in group A and 0.35 cm in group B; <i>Y</i> 0.67 cm and 0.45 cm; <i>Z</i> 0.54 cm and 0.42 cm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional carbon fiber human body fixator combined with thermoplastic film can significantly reduce the setup error. However, the carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position demonstrated larger setup errors in the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> directions compared with the conventional fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask, indicating the need for further workflow optimization. Given that the lithotomy position is essential for transperineal ultrasound-guided techniques, further research and improvements are required to achieve higher positioning accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"北京大学学报(医学版)\",\"volume\":\"57 4\",\"pages\":\"692-697\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12330908/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"北京大学学报(医学版)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"北京大学学报(医学版)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Comparison of setup errors between two immobilization methods in prostate cancer radiotherapy based on cone-beam computed tomography].
Objective: To analyze and compare the interfractional setup errors between two body positioning fixation methods (lithotomy position with carbon fiber full-body fixation frame vs. conventional carbon fiber body fixation frame combined with thermoplastic membrane) in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and to calculate the clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin (MPTV) for both methods to optimize immobilization techniques and radiotherapy workflows.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 37 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostate radiotherapy at Peking University First Hospital between August 2021 and March 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the immobilization method: Group A (18 patients, 450 CBCT image sets) used a carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position, while Group B (19 patients, 461 CBCT image sets) used a conventional carbon fiber fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask. All the patients underwent daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance. Bone registration combined with manual registration was used to obtain the setup error data in the left-right (X), cranio-caudal (Y) and anterior-posterior (Z) directions. The positioning errors of the two groups were compared by using the independent sample t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test. The average positioning error, systematic positioning error (Σ) and random positioning error (δ) were calculated, and the CTV-PTV extension distance was calculated by using the (MPTV=2.5Σ+0.7δ).
Results: The analysis of the setup errors in the three-dimensional direction showed significant differences between the two groups (all P < 0.01). Specifically, the median (quartile) absolute values of the errors in the X, Y, and Z directions of group A were [0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm, 0.50 (0.30, 0.80) cm, and 0.35 (0.20, 0.60) cm], respectively. In group B, the corresponding values were significantly reduced to [0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm, 0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm and 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm]. The results of Mann-Whitney U test showed that the differences in each direction were highly statistically significant (X: z=-6.86; Y: z=-2.76; Z: z=-5.71). The cumulative distribution ratio of the setup error displacement within 0.5 cm in the X, Y, and Z directions in group A and group B were 297 (66.0%) and 408 (88.5%) (P < 0.01), 250 (55.6%) and 285 (61.8%) (P=0.055), 308 (68.4%) and 391 (84.8%) (P < 0.01), respectively. The CTV-PTV margins in three directions were X 0.66 cm in group A and 0.35 cm in group B; Y 0.67 cm and 0.45 cm; Z 0.54 cm and 0.42 cm.
Conclusion: Conventional carbon fiber human body fixator combined with thermoplastic film can significantly reduce the setup error. However, the carbon fiber whole-body fixator in the lithotomy position demonstrated larger setup errors in the X, Y, and Z directions compared with the conventional fixator combined with a thermoplastic mask, indicating the need for further workflow optimization. Given that the lithotomy position is essential for transperineal ultrasound-guided techniques, further research and improvements are required to achieve higher positioning accuracy.
期刊介绍:
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban / Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), established in 1959, is a national academic journal sponsored by Peking University, and its former name is Journal of Beijing Medical University. The coverage of the Journal includes basic medical sciences, clinical medicine, oral medicine, surgery, public health and epidemiology, pharmacology and pharmacy. Over the last few years, the Journal has published articles and reports covering major topics in the different special issues (e.g. research on disease genome, theory of drug withdrawal, mechanism and prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, stomatology, orthopaedic, public health, urology and reproductive medicine). All the topics involve latest advances in medical sciences, hot topics in specific specialties, and prevention and treatment of major diseases.
The Journal has been indexed and abstracted by PubMed Central (PMC), MEDLINE/PubMed, EBSCO, Embase, Scopus, Chemical Abstracts (CA), Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPR), JSTChina, and almost all the Chinese sciences and technical index systems, including Chinese Science and Technology Paper Citation Database (CSTPCD), Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), China BioMedical Bibliographic Database (CBM), CMCI, Chinese Biological Abstracts, China National Academic Magazine Data-Base (CNKI), Wanfang Data (ChinaInfo), etc.