1
|
Keane M, Weitkamp N, Madani I, Day J, Dal Bello R, Zamburlini M, Schiess A, Moreira A, Perryck S, Tomuschat K, Spencer M, Tanadini-Lang S, Guckenberger M, Brown M. Randomized self-controlled study comparing open-face vs. closed immobilization masks in fractionated cranial radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2024; 196:110314. [PMID: 38677329 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2023] [Revised: 04/01/2024] [Accepted: 04/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/29/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare patient discomfort and immobilisation performance of open-face and closed immobilization masks in cranial radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a single-center randomized self-controlled clinical trial. At CT simulation, an open-face and closed mask was made for each patient and treatment plans with identical dose prescription were generated for each mask. Patients were randomised to start treatment with an open-face or closed mask. Masks were switched halfway through the treatment course; every patient was their own control. Patients self-reported discomfort, anxiety and pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Inter- and intrafraction set-up variability was measured with planar kV imaging and a surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for the open-face masks. RESULTS 30 patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors were randomized - 29 completed radiotherapy to a median total dose of 54 Gy (range 30-60 Gy). Mean discomfort VAS score was significantly lower with open-face masks (0.5, standard deviation 1.0) vs. closed masks (3.3, standard deviation 2.9), P < 0.0001. Anxiety and pain VAS scores were significantly lower with open-face masks (P < 0.0001). Closed masks caused more discomfort in infraorbital (P < 0.001) and maxillary (P = 0.02) areas. Two patients and 27 patients preferred closed or open-face masks, respectively. Interfraction longitudinal shifts and roll and yaw rotations were significantly smaller and lateral shifts were significantly larger with closed masks in combination with the laser system (P < 0.05) compared to open masks in combination with a SGRT system. Intrafraction variability did not differ between the masks. CONCLUSIONS Open-face masks are associated with decreased patient discomfort without compromising patient positioning and immobilisation accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michèle Keane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Nienke Weitkamp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Indira Madani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Jonathan Day
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Riccardo Dal Bello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Mariangela Zamburlini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Antonia Schiess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Amanda Moreira
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Sophie Perryck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Katja Tomuschat
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Marilyn Spencer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Stephanie Tanadini-Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Michelle Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen X, Liu L, Wang Y, Huang X, Cai W, Rong X, Lin L, Liu J, Jiang X. Surface guided radiation therapy with an innovative open-face mask and mouth bite: patient motion management in brain stereotactic radiotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:424-433. [PMID: 37395988 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-023-03260-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 06/18/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To guarantee treatment reproducibility and stability, immobilization devices are essential. Additionally, surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) serves as an accurate complement to frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) by aiding patient positioning and real-time monitoring, especially when non-coplanar fields are in use. At our institute, we have developed a surface-guided SRS (SG-SRS) workflow that incorporates our innovative open-face mask (OM) and mouth bite (MB) to guarantee a precise and accurate dose delivery. METHODS This study included 40 patients, and all patients were divided into closed mask (CM) and open-face mask (OM) groups according to different positioning flow. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed, and the registration results were recorded before and after the treatment. Then Bland-Altman method was used to analyze the consistency of AlignRT-guided positioning errors and CBCT scanning results in the OM group. The error changes between 31 fractions in one patient were recorded to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring during treatment. RESULTS The median of translation error between stages of the AlignRT positioning process was (0.03-0.07) cm, and the median of rotation error was (0.20-0.40)°, which were significantly better than those of the Fraxion positioning process (0.09-0.11) cm and (0.60-0.75)°. The mean bias values between the AlignRT guided positioning errors and CBCT were 0.01 cm, - 0.07 cm, 0.03 cm, - 0.30°, - 0.08° and 0.00°. The 31 inter-fractional errors of a single patient monitored by SGRT were within 0.10 cm and 0.50°. CONCLUSIONS The application of the SGRT with an innovative open-face mask and mouth bite device could achieve precision positioning accuracy and stability, and the accuracy of the AlignRT system exhibits excellent constancy with the CBCT gold standard. The non-coplanar radiation field monitoring can provide reliable support for motion management in fractional treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuemei Chen
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lu Liu
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yajuan Wang
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiaotong Huang
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weixun Cai
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiaodong Rong
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Liuwen Lin
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jindi Liu
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
| | - Xiaobo Jiang
- Department of Radiotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|