Streamlining the image-guided radiotherapy process for proton beam therapy.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
Proton Therapy
/ methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ methods
Time
United Kingdom
Workflow
Young Adult
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
15
9
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
14
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This work evaluated the on-treatment imaging workflow in the UK's first proton beam therapy (PBT) centre, with a view to reducing times and unnecessary imaging doses to patients. Imaging dose and timing data from the first 20 patients (70% paediatrics, 30% TYA/adult) treated with PBT using the initial image-guided PBT (IGPBT) workflow of a 2-dimensional kilo-voltage (2DkV), followed by cone-beam computed-tomography (CBCT) and repeat 2DkV was included. Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe correlations between 2DkV and CBCT images to determine if any images were superfluous. 229 treatment sessions were evaluated. Patient repositioning following the initial 2DkV (i2DkV) was required on 19 (8.3%) fractions. This three-step process resulted in an additional mean imaging dose of 3.4 mGy per patient, and 5.1 minutes on the treatment bed for the patient, over a whole course of PBT, compared to a two-step workflow (removing the i2DkV image). Correspondence between the mean displacements from i2DkV and CBCT was high, with Removing the i2DkV, streamlining to a two-step workflow, would reduce treatment times and imaging dose, and has been implemented as standard verification protocol. For challenging cases ( This is the first report assessing a preliminary imaging protocol in PBT in the UK and determining a way to reduce dose and time, which ultimately benefits the patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34520675
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210764
pmc: PMC8631028
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20210764Références
Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1254-8
pubmed: 26329760
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jul;128(1):4-8
pubmed: 29605478
Chin J Cancer. 2011 May;30(5):315-26
pubmed: 21527064
BMJ. 2019 Feb 11;364:l313
pubmed: 30745321
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr;23(2):88-96
pubmed: 23473685
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 Sep-Oct;4(5):336-341
pubmed: 25194103
J Hematol Oncol. 2018 Dec 12;11(1):136
pubmed: 30541578
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Mar 02;11(3):
pubmed: 30832346
Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jun 12;14:43-50
pubmed: 32566769
Radiologe. 2019 Dec;59(Suppl 1):21-27
pubmed: 31346650
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021 May;68 Suppl 2:e28349
pubmed: 33818893
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Jul;108(1):91-8
pubmed: 23830468
Radiol Phys Technol. 2013 Jul;6(2):249-72
pubmed: 23420206
Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):e1086-e1095
pubmed: 30421805
Med Phys. 2018 May;45(5):e84-e99
pubmed: 29468678
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018 May;30(5):293-298
pubmed: 29551567