BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 158-161
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/32191494

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Donato, K
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, K
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Donato, K
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, K

Short communication

A comparative evaluation of two head and neck immobilization devices using electronic portal imaging

K Donato, BSc (Hon)1, K Leszczynski, PhD, FCCPM1 and K Fleming, MHSc, MRT(T)2

1 Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre, Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital, 41 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 5J1 , 2 Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 1G3, Canada

Correspondence: K Leszczynski.

A study was performed to compare the positioning reproducibility and the cost efficiency for two head and neck immobilization devices: the Uvex© (Uvex Safety, Smithfield, USA) plastic mask system and the Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System© (PLANET Medical, Svendborg, Denmark). 20 patients treated with 3D conformal radiation therapy for head and neck cancers were randomly selected (10 for each of the two different immobilization systems) and electronic portal images acquired during their course of treatment were saved and used in this study. The anatomical landmark coordinates and their shifts in the anteroposterior (AP) and craniocaudal (CC) directions with respect to the digitized simulator films for lateral fields were analysed using an in-house developed portal image registration system. Statistically, no evidence was found to indicate that the systematic components of the displacement for the Uvex© system and the Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System© were different from each other or from zero. The random component of displacement was slightly smaller in the AP direction for the Uvex© than the Ultraplast© system ({sigma} = 1.9 mm and 2.9 mm, respectively, p = 0.007), but larger in the CC direction ({sigma} = 3.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively, p<10–9). Production time and required materials for a radiation therapy department were also quantified to assess costs for each system. The overall costs per patient were estimated at $141.50 (CAD) and $82.10 for the Uvex© and Ultraplast© systems, respectively. The Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System© of immobilization for head and neck cancer treatment provides a field placement reproducibility that is equal to, or greater than, that of the Uvex© plastic mask immobilization system and, while it requires more expensive materials, the workload and consequently overall cost is greatly reduced.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.