Volume 2, Issue 1 (January 2023)
Health Science Monitor 2023, 2(1): 1-9 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zeinali A, Ghareayaghi Y, Seyedarabi H, Saberi H. Using a photographic image processing method as a part of the QA program in some radiotherapy departments where CTs are involved with COVID-19 patients. Health Science Monitor 2023; 2 (1) :1-9
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-71-en.html
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-71-en.html
Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
Abstract: (567 Views)
Background & Aims: Owing to the significant role of CT images in diagnosis and follow up of patients affected with coronavirus, the imaging section of cancer centers in some countries engaged in providing services to COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to introduce a CT-independent photographic-based QA method in some radiotherapy departments where CTs are involved with COVID-19 patients.
Materials & Methods: An anthropomorphic woman-like torso phantom was used in the first step of study for setup arrangement and preliminary data extractions. Then in the second step, four patients with early stage breast cancer were evaluated. In all steps, the key parameters extracted from photographic-based method were compared with the same parameters extracted from CT system, which was considered as the gold standard method. A home-made computer code developed in MATLAB was used to extract parameters in the new method. Finally, the corresponding parameters were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon method.
Results: Our results showed that the newly introduced method can predict desired parameters equal to CT-based method. Using this method, a part of the QA program will be performed with no dependency on CT systems. Also, the image sections load work in some radiotherapy departments, which their CT systems are involved with COVID-19 patients, can reduce.
Conclusion: The proposed method could help identify and remove important uncertainties and errors in radiotherapy courses, especially between fractions, without imposing ionizing radiation on patients in pandemic conditions.
Materials & Methods: An anthropomorphic woman-like torso phantom was used in the first step of study for setup arrangement and preliminary data extractions. Then in the second step, four patients with early stage breast cancer were evaluated. In all steps, the key parameters extracted from photographic-based method were compared with the same parameters extracted from CT system, which was considered as the gold standard method. A home-made computer code developed in MATLAB was used to extract parameters in the new method. Finally, the corresponding parameters were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon method.
Results: Our results showed that the newly introduced method can predict desired parameters equal to CT-based method. Using this method, a part of the QA program will be performed with no dependency on CT systems. Also, the image sections load work in some radiotherapy departments, which their CT systems are involved with COVID-19 patients, can reduce.
Conclusion: The proposed method could help identify and remove important uncertainties and errors in radiotherapy courses, especially between fractions, without imposing ionizing radiation on patients in pandemic conditions.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/09/13 | Accepted: 2022/10/2 | Published: 2023/01/20
Received: 2022/09/13 | Accepted: 2022/10/2 | Published: 2023/01/20
References
1. Haussmann J, Corradini S, Nestle-Kraemling C, Bölke E, Njanang FJD, Tamaskovics B, et al. Recent advances in radiotherapy of breast cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15:1-10. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Moyers M, Toth T, Sadagopan R, Chvetsov A, Unkelbach J, Mohan R, et al. Physical uncertainties in the planning and delivery of light ion beam treatments. AAPM TG202 Report, E. 2019;15:966-71. [DOI]
3. Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R, Van Dyke J. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Medical physics. 1998 Oct;25(10):1773-829. [DOI] [PMID]
4. Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, Zhan C, Chen C, Lv W, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 cases. Radiology. 2020;296(2):E32-E40. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Caruso D, Zerunian M, Polici M, Pucciarelli F, Polidori T, Rucci C, et al. Chest CT features of COVID-19 in Rome, Italy. Radiology. 2020;296(2):E79-E85. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Fang Y, Zhang H, Xie J, Lin M, Ying L, Pang P, et al. Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: comparison to RT-PCR. Radiology. 2020;296(2):E115-E7. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Kanne JP, Little BP, Chung JH, Elicker BM, Ketai LH. Essentials for radiologists on COVID-19: an update-radiology scientific expert panel. Radiology. 2020 Aug 1. [DOI]
8. Revel M-P, Parkar AP, Prosch H, Silva M, Sverzellati N, Gleeson F, et al. COVID-19 patients and the Radiology department-advice from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI). European radiology. 2020;30(9):4903-9. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Maddalo M, Altabella L, Sverzellati N. Dosimetric and radiation cancer risk evaluation of high resolution thorax CT during COVID-19 outbreak. Physica Medica. 2020; 80:119-24. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Obedian E, Fischer DB, Haffty BG. Second malignancies after treatment of early-stage breast cancer: lumpectomy and radiation therapy versus mastectomy. Journal of clinical oncology. 2000;18(12):2406-12. [DOI] [PMID]
11. Fowble B, Hanlon A, Freedman G, Nicolaou N, Anderson P. Second cancers after conservative surgery and radiation for stages I-II breast cancer: identifying a subset of women at increased risk. International Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2001;51(3):679-90. [DOI] [PMID]
12. Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B. Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2003;56(4):1038-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00203-7 [DOI] [PMID]
13. Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE. Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Research. 2004;7(1):1-12. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Ratosa I, Jenko A, Oblak API. Breast size impact on adjuvant radiotherapy adverse effects and dose parameters in treatment planning. Radiology and oncology. 2018;52(3):233. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Munshi A, Pai RH, Phurailatpam R, Budrukkar A, Jalali R, Sarin R, Deshpande DD, Shrivastava SK, Dinshaw KA. Do all patients of breast carcinoma need 3-dimensional CT-based planning? A dosimetric study comparing different breast sizes. Medical Dosimetry. 2009 Jun 1;34(2):140-4. [DOI] [PMID]
16. Afkhami AM, Parwaei W, Haghparast M. The impact of breast size on heart and lung doses in the treatment of breast cancer using 2 and 3 dimensional tangential fields. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. 2015 Jan 1;22(5):758-64. [URL]
17. Moody AM, Mayles WP, Bliss JM, A'Hern RP, Owen JR, Regan J, Broad B, Yarnold JR. The influence of breast size on late radiation effects and association with radiotherapy dose inhomogeneity. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1994 Nov 1;33(2):106-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(94)90063-9 [DOI] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
