Affiliations: [a] Department of Radiation Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| [b] Department of Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| [c] Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Centre, Omaha, NE, USA
| [d] Department of Radiation Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Guang Han, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430079, China. E-mail: hg7913@hotmail.com.
Note: [1] Equal contributors.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:The skin marking method (SMM) and bow-form-ruler marking method (BFRM) are two commonly used patient marking methods in mainland China. This study aims to evaluate SMM and BFRM by comparing the inter-fraction setup errors from using these two methods together with vacuum cushion immobilization in patients underwent radiotherapy for different treatment sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Eighteen patients diagnosed with pelvic, abdominal and thoracic malignant tumors (with 6 patients per treatment site) were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients were immobilized with vacuum cushion. Each patient was marked by both SMM and BFRM before computed tomography (CT) simulation. Target location was verified by cone beam CT images with displacements assessed prior to each sampled treatment session. The localization errors in three translational and three rotational directions were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS:Images from 108 fractions in 18 patients produced 324 translational and 324 rotational comparisons for SMM and BFRM. The setup errors of all treatment sites showed no difference in two marking methods in any directions (p > 0.05). In subgroups of treatment site analysis, SMM significantly lessened the lateral and yaw setup errors compared to BFRM in the pelvic sites (0.39±1.85 mm vs –1.28±1.13 mm, p < 0.01 and –0.19±0.59° vs –0.61±0.59°, p < 0.05). However, in the abdominal subgroup, BFRM was superior to SMM for reduced vertical errors (0.17±2.73 mm vs 2.28±3.16 mm, p < 0.05). For the underweight or obese patients (with Body Mass Index, BMI < 18.5 or BMI≥24), SMM resulted in less yaw errors compared to BFRM (–0.05±0.38° vs –0.43±0.48°, p < 0.05). No significant difference between SMM and BFRM in setup errors of normal weighted patients (18.5≤BMI < 24) was observed for all three studied treatment sites. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows no significant difference in patient setup errors for various treatment sites between SMM and BFRM in general. SMM may be suitable for the pelvic tumor and patients with BMI < 18.5 or BMI≥24, while BFRM is recommended for the abdominal tumor sites.
