[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]。

Q3 Medicine
北京大学学报(医学版) Pub Date : 2025-08-18
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分析比较两种体位固定方式(取石位碳纤维全身固定架与常规碳纤维全身固定架联合热塑性膜)在前列腺癌根治性放疗中的分时设置误差,计算两种方法的临床靶体积(CTV)和规划靶体积(PTV)边界(MPTV),以优化两种方法的固定技术和放疗工作流程。方法:回顾性分析2021年8月至2023年3月在北京大学第一医院连续行根治性前列腺放疗的37例患者。根据固定方式将患者分为两组:A组(18例,450张CBCT图像集)在取石位使用碳纤维全身固定架;B组(19例,461张CBCT图像集)使用常规碳纤维固定架联合热塑性口罩。所有患者均每日接受锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)图像引导。采用骨配准结合人工配准的方法获得左右(X)、颅尾(Y)和前后(Z)方向的设置误差数据。采用独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和卡方检验比较两组的定位误差。计算平均定位误差、系统定位误差(Σ)和随机定位误差(δ),利用(MPTV=2.5Σ+0.7δ)计算CTV-PTV延伸距离。结果:两组三维方向设置误差分析差异有统计学意义(均P < 0.01)。其中,A组X、Y、Z方向误差的中位数(四分位数)绝对值分别为[0.40 (0.20,0.70)cm, 0.50 (0.30, 0.80) cm, 0.35 (0.20, 0.60) cm]。B组相应值显著降低至[0.20 (0.10,0.40)cm, 0.40 (0.20, 0.70) cm, 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) cm]。Mann-Whitney U检验结果显示,各方向差异具有高度统计学意义(X: z=-6.86;Y: z = -2.76;Z: Z = -5.71)。A组和B组X、Y、Z方向0.5 cm内设置误差位移累积分布比分别为297(66.0%)和408 (88.5%)(P < 0.01), 250(55.6%)和285 (61.8%)(P=0.055), 308(68.4%)和391 (84.8%)(P < 0.01)。3个方向CTV-PTV边缘分别为X 0.66 cm和0.35 cm;Y 0.67 cm和0.45 cm;Z 0.54 cm和0.42 cm。结论:常规碳纤维人体固定器结合热塑性塑料薄膜可显著降低安装误差。然而,在取石位置,碳纤维全身固定架在X、Y和Z方向上的安装误差比传统固定架结合热塑性掩模更大,这表明需要进一步优化工作流程。超声引导下经会阴穿刺取石位置至关重要,需要进一步研究和改进以达到更高的定位精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
北京大学学报(医学版)
北京大学学报(医学版) Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9815
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信