Comparison of Two Different Immobilization Devices for Pelvic Region Radiotherapy in Tomotherapy
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 김대건 | - |
dc.contributor.author | James J Jung | - |
dc.contributor.author | 조광환 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 류미령 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 문성권 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 배선현 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 안재욱 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 정재홍 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-08-11T18:25:43Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-08-11T18:25:43Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2508-4445 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/sch/handle/2021.sw.sch/9573 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was to compare the patient setup errors of two different immobilization devices (Feet Fix: FF and Leg Fix: LF) for pelvic region radiotherapy in Tomotherapy. Thirty six-patients previously treated with IMRT technique were selected, and divided into two groups based on applied immobilization devices (FF versus LF). We performed a retrospective clinical analysis including the mean, systematic, random variation, 3D-error, and calculated the planning target volume (PTV) margin. In addition, a rotational error (angles, o) for each patient was analyzed using the automatic image registration. The 3D-errors for the FF and the LF groups were 3.70 mm and 4.26 mm, respectively; the LF group value was 15.1% higher than in the FF group. The treatment margin in the ML, SI, and AP directions were 5.23 mm (6.08 mm), 4.64 mm (6.29 mm), 5.83 mm (8.69 mm) in the FF group (and the LF group), respectively, that the FF group was lower than in the LF group. The percentage in treatment fractions for the FF group (ant the LF group) in greater than 5 mm at ML, SI, and AP direction was 1.7% (3.6%), 3.3% (10.7%), and 5.0% (16.1%), respectively. Two different immobilization devices were affected the patient setup errors due to different fixed location in low extremity. The radiotherapy for the pelvic region by Tomotherapy should be considering variation for the rotational angles including Yaw and Pitch direction that incorrect setup error during the treatment. In addition the choice of an appropriate immobilization device is important because an unalterable rotation angle affects the setup error. | - |
dc.format.extent | 8 | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
dc.publisher | 한국의학물리학회 | - |
dc.title | Comparison of Two Different Immobilization Devices for Pelvic Region Radiotherapy in Tomotherapy | - |
dc.title.alternative | Comparison of Two Different Immobilization Devices for Pelvic Region Radiotherapy in Tomotherapy | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.publisher.location | 대한민국 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.14316/pmp.2016.27.4.250 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | PROGRESS in MEDICAL PHYSICS, v.27, no.4, pp 250 - 257 | - |
dc.citation.title | PROGRESS in MEDICAL PHYSICS | - |
dc.citation.volume | 27 | - |
dc.citation.number | 4 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 250 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 257 | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART002188514 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kciCandi | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Tomotherapy | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Immobilization | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Setup error | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | MVCT | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(31538) 22, Soonchunhyang-ro, Asan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea+82-41-530-1114
COPYRIGHT 2021 by SOONCHUNHYANG UNIVERSITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.