We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
For palliative radiotherapy treatments, two types of simulation are available at our Centre: conventional (or 2D) and virtual. Each has its advantages: conventional simulation requires less preparation time whereas virtual simulation allows accurate visualisation and identification of target volumes in 3D. We propose a new approach where treatment field parameters are determined on diagnostic CT scans, and then reproduced with reference to a patient’s bony landmarks using conventional simulation. This combines the benefits of both methods. We argue that the slight differences in set-up between diagnostic and simulation CT scans will have little impact on the determination of the target volume in palliative treatment settings.
Methods
In total, 12 patients who had diagnostic scans done within a month before their virtual simulation were randomly selected. Both scans were retrieved retrospectively for the study. An independent radiation oncologist contoured the target volumes on both scans and their relative positions were compared by fusing the digitally reconstructed radiographs generated from the respective scans. A 2D Conformity Index (2DCI) was then calculated and tabulated for 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2 cm margins to evaluate the accuracy of this approach and determine the margins required to account for the inherent variability of this method. In addition, the deviation or offset of the centre of field (COF) was also measured and analysed.
Results
The median 2DCI (0 margin) was 0.85. For margins of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 cm, the median 2DCIs were 0.97, 1, 1 and 1, respectively. The median displacement of the COF in the superior–inferior direction was 0.7 cm and that in the right–left direction was 0.2 cm.
Conclusion
Our pilot study suggests that our approach is feasible. We recommend adding an additional margin of up to 0.5 cm (to the usual treatment margins) to ensure good coverage of the target volume when using this method.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.