LAUSR

INTRODUCTION Image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy is essential for oncology treatment of head-and-neck cancer patients. AIM MV-kV and CBCT modalities were compared in case of IGRT treatment for head-and-neck cancer patients. Setup error, setup margin (SM), imaging and evaluation times and imaging doses were analyzed. METHOD Eight patients' elective treatment was evaluated, 66 orthogonal MV-kV images and 66 CBCT series were acquired. Setup error measurement was based on bony manual image registration in three translational directions. Normality test and F-test were performed followed by the comparison with independent-samples T-test (p<0,05). The necessary target volume setup margin was calculated based on Van Herk's equation. Imaging time and setup error determination time were measured. Imaging doses were estimated based on the literature. RESULTS No statistically significant difference was found between setup errors determined by MV-kV and CBCT (VRT: 0.5 mm, SD = 1.9 vs. 0.4 mm, SD = 2.1, p = 0.371; LNG: 0.2 mm, SD = 2.2 vs. -0.1 mm, SD = 2.2, p = 0.188; LAT: 0.2 mm, SD = 2.2 vs. 0.3 mm, SD = 2.1, p = 0.41). SM values were: VRT: 2.7 mm vs. 2.5 mm; LNG: 2.1 mm vs. 1.3 mm; LAT: 2.2 mm vs. 2.3 mm. Mean imaging time was 0.65 min (MV-kV) vs. 2.29 min (CBCT). Mean setup error determination time was 2.41 min for both modalities. Estimated imaging doses were 6.88 mGy (MV-kV) vs. 17.2 mGy (CBCT) per fraction. CONCLUSION The bony anatomy derived image registration based translational setup error determination results in similar values either by MV-kV or by CBCT. Using 3 mm setup margin in all the directions might be adequate. Imaging time is less by MV-kV, significant difference in imaging doses did not appear. Using CBCT is generally suggested. MV-kV might be an alternative in case of need for shortened imaging time. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(29): 1193-1200.