Mustafa Ali GUNAYDIN, Burcu BOYBAŞ, Arif KARTAL, Esil KARA, Ayşe HİÇSÖNMEZ, Bahar DİRİCAN, Müge AKMANSU

The Evaluation of the Set-Up Differences Between Radiation Therapists for Head and Neck Patients

OBJECTIVEThe aim of the present study was to determine the electronic portal imaging (EPI) evaluation differencesbetween the therapists in the reference of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).METHODSIn the present study, 62 EPI images belonging to 13 head and neck patients were evaluated separately byfour therapists as offline, and the amount of shift in the center of fields was determined. CBCT obtainedat the same time with the EPI images was accepted as reference, and the amount of shift in the center offields was compared separately for each therapist with the results of EPI.RESULTSAccording to our results, the amount of shift in the center of fields had changed between therapists with0–9.4 mm in the reference of CBCT. The probability of shifting center of fields to be >3 mm was 60% forthe first therapist, 35% for the second therapist, 63% for the third therapist, and 50% for the fourth therapist. The probability of shifting center of fields to be >5 mm was 24%, 8%, 27%, and 14.5%, respectively.Analysis of variance for repeated measures test was applied to center shift values, and there were a significant difference in the groups (sig.

PDF

___

1. Mell LK, Pawlicki T. Image–Guided Radiation Therapy, Perez CA, Halperin EC, Brady LW, editors. Principles and practice of radiation oncology, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkinspress: 2008. p: 263–93.
2. Şenkesen Ö, Küçücük H. Treatment verification methods. Garipağaoğlu M. Çetingöz R, editors. Basic and Clinical Radiotherapy, first press, Hürriyet printing, TROD publish; 2013.p. 85–95.
3. Smith TN, Baird M. Radiographers' role in radiological reporting: a model to support future demand. Med J Aust 2007;186(12):629–31.
4. Li H, Zhu XR, Zhang L, Dong L, Tung S, Ahamad A, et al. Comparison of 2D radiographic images and 3D cone beam computed tomography for positioning head-and-neck radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(3):916–25.
5. Kim GY, Pawlicki T, Le QT, Luxton G. Linac-based on-board imaging feasibility and the dosimetric consequences of head roll in head-and-neck IMRT plans. Med Dosim 2008;33(1):93–9.
6. van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004; 14(1):52–64.
7. Michalski J, Purdy JA, Gaspar L, Souhami L, Ballow M, Bradley J, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Research Plan 2002-2006. Image-Guided Radiation Therapy Committee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51(3 Suppl 2):60–5.
8. Griffiths SE, Pearcey RG, Thorogood J. Quality control in radiotherapy: the reduction of field placement errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1987;13(10):1583–8.
9. van Elmpt W, Nijsten S, Mijnheer B, Dekker A, Lambin P. The next step in patient-specific QA: 3D dose verification of conformal and intensity-modulated RT based on EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo dose calculations. Radiother Oncol 2008;86(1):86–92.
10.Boyer AL, Antonuk L, Fenster A, Van Herk M, Meertens H, Munro P, et al. A review of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs). Med Phys 1992;19(1):1–16.
11.Hawkins MA, Aitken A, Hansen VN, McNair HA, Tait DM. Set-up errors in radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers--is electronic portal imaging or conebeam more accurate? Radiother Oncol 2011;98(2):249–54.