Analysis of Patient Cranial Angle and Intrafractional Stability in CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery
PO-2259
Abstract
Analysis of Patient Cranial Angle and Intrafractional Stability in CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery
Authors: Ya-Yu Huang1, Chen-Lin Kang2, Shu-Huei Tsai2, Yi-Ren Chen3
1Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Proton Therapy Center Department , Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 2Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Department, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 3Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital , Proton Therapy Center, Department, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
The type of fixation mask and head supports used in SRS has a considerable impact on treatment accuracy. The CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system is characterized by real-time image-guided positioning technology with a flexible robotic arm that can correct for the intrafractional motion of the patient.The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in patients’ cranial angle and treatment accuracy in CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery.
Material and Methods
In this study, we retrospective collected 5240 records from 48 patients with brain tumors treated with CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery at our institution (No. 202200891B0). The median cranial angle was 10° with a range of 3-18°. There were 38 patients with a cranial angle ≤10° (Group A), and 28 patients with cranial angle >10° (Group B). The skull motions in X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, roll, pitch, and yaw between the two groups were compared. The Friedman ANOVA test was used to analyze the change in error over each 10-minute period. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess differences between the two groups. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
The significant changes in translational errors in Group A were in the X axis (P < 0 .03), while those in Group B were in the Z axis (P < 0 .036). As for in the 3D vector and rotational errors, there were no significant changes in either group. To compare between the groups, we found that the changes in errors in the Y axis (P < 0.048) and roll axis (P < 0.004) in Group A were significantly smaller than those in Group B.
Conclusion
During thermoplastic mask making, adjusting the patient’s cranial angle to ≤10° can provide better or similar treatment stability in translational and rotational axes compared to patients with a cranial angle >10°.