Clinical use of stereoscopic X-ray positioning of patients treated with conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate accuracy and time requirements of a stereoscopic X-ray-based positioning system in patients receiving conformal radiotherapy to the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Setup errors of the isocenter with regard to the bony pelvis were measured by means of orthogonal verification films and compared to conventional positioning (using skin drawings and lasers) and infrared marker (IR) based positioning in each of 261 treatments. In each direction, the random error represents the standard deviation and the systematic error the absolute value of the mean position. Time measurements were done in 75 treatments. RESULTS: Random errors with the X-ray positioning system in the anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and longitudinal direction were (average +/- 1 standard deviation) 2 +/- 0.6 mm, 1.7 +/- 0.6 mm, and 2.4 +/- 0.7 mm. The corresponding values of conventional as well as IR positioning were significantly higher (p < 0.01). Systematic errors for X-ray positioning were 1.1 +/- 1.2 mm AP, 0.6 +/- 0.5 mm laterally, and 1.5 +/- 1.6 mm longitudinally. Conventional and IR marker-based positioning showed significantly larger systematic errors AP and laterally, but longitudinally, the difference was not significant. Depending on the axis looked at, errors of >or=5 mm occurred in 2%-14% of treatments after X-ray positioning, 13%-29% using IR markers, and 28%-53% with conventional positioning. Total linac time for one treatment session was 14 min 51 s +/- 4 min 18 s, half of which was used for the X-ray-assisted positioning procedure. CONCLUSION: X-ray-assisted patient positioning significantly improves setup accuracy, at the cost of an increased treatment time.

Initial clinical experience with infrared-reflecting skin markers in the positioning of patients treated by conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate an infrared (IR) marker-based positioning system in patients receiving conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During 553 treatments, the ability of the IR system to automatically position the isocenter was recorded. Setup errors were measured by means of orthogonal verification films and compared to conventional positioning (using skin drawings and lasers) in 184 treatments. RESULTS: The standard deviation of anteroposterior (AP) and lateral setup errors was significantly reduced with IR marker positioning compared to conventional: 2 vs. 4.8 mm AP (p < 0.01) and 1.6 vs. 3.5 mm laterally (p < 0.01). Longitudinally, the difference was not significant (3.5 vs. 3.0 mm). Systematic errors were on the average smaller AP and laterally for the IR method: 4.1 vs. 7.8 mm AP (p = 0.01) and 3.1 vs. 5.6 mm lateral (p = 0.07). Longitudinally, the IR system resulted in somewhat larger systematic errors: 5.0 vs. 3.4 mm for conventional positioning (p = 0.03). The use of an off-line correction protocol, based on the average deviation measured over the first four fractions, allowed virtual elimination of systematic errors. Inability of the IR system to correctly locate the markers, leading to an executional failure, occurred in 21% of 553 fractions. CONCLUSION: IR marker-assisted patient positioning significantly improves setup accuracy along the AP and lateral axes. Executional failures need to be reduced.