Click here to

Session: Multi-Disciplinary General ePoster Viewing [Return to Session]

IGRT Registration Errors Comparisons and the Effects On the Dosimetric Analysis for IMRT in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

J Lian1,2, S Huang1, W Zheng1,3, E Li4, T Wen2, X Yang1*, (1) Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, 510060, China,(2) Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, 510405, China, (3) Department of Radiation Oncology, Southern Theater Air Force Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, 510050, China, (4) Guangzhou Xinhua College, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510520, China


PO-GePV-M-133 (Sunday, 7/10/2022)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

ePoster Forums

Purpose: To compare the image guided registration errors (3D vs pseudo 6D) between the planning CT and the cone beam CT (CBCT) for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC); and investigate the dosimetry differences between the two registration methods.

Methods: A pseudo 6D registration could be performed without an 6D couch when only the translational shifts were applied. Firstly, a total of 40 NPC patients were collected with the same immobilization device to reduce the localization error in the radiotherapy. Secondly, Both planning CT and CBCT were registered online on the Linac console via 3D and 6D registration, respectively. Thirdly, two sets of positioning errors/shifts were obtained to explore the differences. Finally, the 3D error and pseudo-6D error plans were simulated and re-calculated via the Eclipse planning system to investigate the dosimetry differences, including both Target and OARs dosimetric values.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between 3D error and pseudo 6D set-up error, (P>0.05). In translational shifts, 3D set-up error (x±s)were ₋₋₋ X:0.28±1.12 mm, Y:0.21±0.85 mm, Z:0.25±1.03 mm; and pseudo 6D set-up error (x±s)were ₋₋₋ X:0.22±0.93 mm, Y:0.15±0.62 mm, Z:0.31±1.27 mm, respectively. There was also no significant difference between Conformity Index (CI) and Homogeneity Index (HI), respectively. Both Target and OAR were compiled the clinical requirements.

Conclusion: In NPC image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy, the 6D rotation error had little effect on the change of 3D translation error, and there was no difference between the 3D and pseudo 6D set-up error plans in the target conformity index and uniformity index.


Image-guided Therapy, Intensity Modulation


IM- Cone Beam CT: Registration

Contact Email