国际肿瘤学杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (3): 150-155.doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20200409-00030

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

头颈部肿瘤旋转误差对放疗位置精准性的影响

徐士飞1,2, 冯欢1, 刘海洋2, 胡杰2, 马露1   

  1. 1武汉大学健康学院 430071
    2武汉大学中南医院肿瘤放化疗科 430071
  • 收稿日期:2020-04-09 修回日期:2020-05-06 出版日期:2021-03-08 发布日期:2021-03-25

Effect of rotational errors on the accuracy of positioning for head-neck tumors in radiotherapy

Xu Shifei1,2, Feng Huan1, Liu Haiyang2, Hu Jie2, Ma Lu1   

  1. 1School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China
    2Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China
  • Received:2020-04-09 Revised:2020-05-06 Online:2021-03-08 Published:2021-03-25

摘要:

目的 研究头颈部肿瘤旋转误差对放疗位置精准性(PA)的影响,评价是否需要矫正旋转误差。方法 收集2019年8月至2020年1月武汉大学中南医院肿瘤放疗中心34例头颈部肿瘤患者的图像资料。每例患者放疗前拍摄兆伏级计算机断层扫描(MVCT)图像,采用两种配准方式与计划千伏级计算机断层扫描(KVCT)图像配准,根据不同配准方式分为对照组(平移配准)和干预组(平移和旋转配准),两组各有144次图像配准。记录两种配准方式的位置误差并比较。数据处理采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Spearman秩相关分析。结果 对照组和干预组左右方向平移误差分别为0.10(5.35)mm和0.00(5.78)mm,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.675,P=0.007);上下方向分别为0.75(2.78)mm和0.60(2.68)mm,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.819,P=0.005);前后方向分别为0.10(0.90)mm和0.20(1.28)mm,差异有统计学意义(Z=-3.984,P<0.001)。干预组俯仰角(pitch)、翻滚角(roll)、偏航角(yaw)旋转误差分别为-0.20(0.60)°、0.35(2.00)°和0.00(0.98)°。两组三维矢量矫正频数呈正偏态分布。矫正累积频率(CCF)随三维矢量不同而变化,三维矢量为8.0 mm,对照组和干预组分别有19次和16次分次治疗未矫正;三维矢量在8.0~13.5 mm之间,干预组矫正趋势减缓且延迟矫正全部分次治疗。Spearman秩相关分析显示,pitch旋转误差与对照组上下方向和干预组前后方向平移误差均呈负相关(r=-0.182,P=0.029和r=-0.484,P<0.001);roll旋转误差与干预组左右方向平移误差呈负相关(r=-0.334,P<0.001);yaw旋转误差与对照组上下方向平移误差呈负相关(r=-0.171,P=0.040),yaw旋转误差与干预组左右和上下方向平移误差分别呈正相关(r=0.370,P<0.001)和负相关(r=-0.203,P=0.015);总角度与对照组上下、前后方向平移误差和三维矢量分别呈正相关(r=0.246,P=0.003)、负相关(r=-0.188,P=0.024)和正相关(r=0.198,P=0.017),总角度与干预组上下方向平移误差和三维矢量均呈正相关(r=0.170,P=0.041;r=0.239,P=0.004);其余变量间均无相关性(均P>0.05)。结论 尽管矫正旋转增加前后方向平移误差和三维矢量,但可促进头颈部肿瘤放疗PA。旋转矫正受限可通过矫正平移误差补偿,以降低其对PA的影响。

关键词: 头颈部肿瘤, 放射疗法, 旋转误差, 平移误差, 位置误差

Abstract:

Objective To study the effect of rotational errors on the positioning accuracy (PA) and to assess whether correcting rotation in patients with head-neck tumors in radiotherapy or not. Methods The image information of 34 patients with head-neck tumors treated at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University between August 2019 and January 2020 was collected. Mega-voltage computed tomography (MVCT) images of each patient were taken before radiotherapy, and were registered with planned kilo-voltage computed tomography (KVCT) images by two registration methods. All information was divided into control group (translation only) and intervention group (translation and rotation) according to different registration methods, there were 144 fractioned registered images for each group, respectively. The position errors of the two registration methods were recorded and compared. Data were carried out with Wilcoxon signed rank test and Spearman rank correlation. Results Translational errors of the control group and the intervention group were 0.10 (5.35) mm and 0.00 (5.78) mm in right-left direction, and there was a statistically significant difference (Z=-2.675, P=0.007); 0.75 (2.78) mm and 0.60 (2.68) mm in superior-inferior direction, and there was a statistically significant difference (Z=-2.819, P=0.005); 0.10 (0.90) mm and 0.20 (1.28) mm in anterio-posterior direction, and there was a statistically significant difference (Z=-3.984, P<0.001). Rotational errors of the intervention group were -0.20 (0.60)°, 0.35 (2.00)°, 0.00 (0.98)° in pitch, roll, yaw, respectively. The distribute of 3D vector corrected frequency for two groups was positively skewed. The corrected cumulative frequency (CCF) varied with 3D vector, 3D vector was 8.0 mm, and 19 F and 16 F fractioned treatments of the control group and the intervention group were not corrected, respectively; 3D vector was between 8.0-13.5 mm, the corrected tendency of the intervention group was slower and fractioned treatment was completed later. The analytical results of Spearman rank correlation showed that rotational errors in pitch were negatively correlated with translational errors of the control group in superior-inferior direction (r=-0.182, P=0.029) and the intervention group in anterio-osterior direction (r=-0.484, P<0.001); rotational errors in roll were negatively correlated with translational errors of the intervention group in right-left direction (r=-0.334, P<0.001); rotational errors in yaw which were positively correlated with translational errors of the intervention group in right-left direction (r=0.370, P<0.001) were negatively correlated with translational errors of the control group in superior-inferior direction (r=-0.171, P=0.040) and the same was true for the intervention group (r=-0.203, P=0.015); total angles were positively correlated and negatively correlated with translational errors of the control group in superior-inferior direction (r=0.246, P=0.003) and anterio-posterior direction (r=-0.188, P=0.024), and positively correlated with 3D vector of the control group (r=0.198, P=0.017), total angles were positively correlated with translational errors of the intervention group in superior-inferior direction (r=0.170, P=0.041) and with 3D vector of the intervention group (r=0.239, P=0.004); there were no correlations between rotational errors and the other translational errors (all P>0.05). Conclusion Although the corrected rotation increases translational errors in anterio-posterior direction and 3D vector, it improves PA for head-neck tumors in radiotherapy. When rotational errors are not corrected, rotational offsets are present with corrected translation to decrease its effect on PA.

Key words: Head and neck neoplasms, Radiotherapy, Rotational error, Translational error, Setup error