ScholarWorksIndianapolis
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse ScholarWorks
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "immobilization device"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of initial setup errors of two immobilization devices for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
    (Wiley, 2017-07) Ueda, Yoshihiro; Teshima, Teruki; Cárdenes, Higinia; Das, Indra J.; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and efficacy of two commonly used commercial immobilization systems for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and setup accuracy of two immobilization systems: the Elekta Body Frame (EBF) and the Civco Body Pro-Lok (CBP) in 80 patients evenly divided for each system. A cone beam CT (CBCT) was used before each treatment fraction for setup correction in both devices. Analyzed shifts were applied for setup correction and CBCT was repeated. If a large shift (>5 mm) occurred in any direction, an additional CBCT was employed for verification after localization. The efficacy of patient setup was analyzed for 105 sessions (48 with the EBF, 57 with the CBP). Result indicates that the CBCT was repeated at the 1st treatment session in 22.5% and 47.5% of the EBF and CBP cases, respectively. The systematic errors {left–right (LR), anterior–posterior (AP), cranio-caudal (CC), and 3D vector shift: (LR2 + AP2 + CC2)1/2 (mm)}, were {0.5 ± 3.7, 2.3 ± 2.5, 0.7 ± 3.5, 7.1 ± 3.1} mm and {0.4 ± 3.6, 0.7 ± 4.0, 0.0 ± 5.5, 9.2 ± 4.2} mm, and the random setup errors were {5.1, 3.0, 3.5, 3.9} mm and {4.6, 4.8, 5.4, 5.3} mm for the EBF and the CBP, respectively. The 3D vector shift was significantly larger for the CBP (P < 0.01). The setup time was slightly longer for the EBF (EBF: 15.1 min, CBP: 13.7 min), but the difference was not statistically significant. It is concluded that adequate accuracy in SBRT can be achieved with either system if image guidance is used. However, patient comfort could dictate the use of CBP system with slightly reduced accuracy.
About IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Notice
  • Copyright © 2025 The Trustees of Indiana University