Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :601
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2020  |  Volume : 57  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 182-186

Comparison of thermoplastic masks and knee wedge as immobilization devices for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Department of Radiation Oncology, Gujarat Cancer Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Mridul Anand
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gujarat Cancer Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_602_18

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Pelvic radiotherapy is generally performed with the use of an immobilization and positioning device. Aim and objective: The objective of the study was to ascertain and compare setup errors between the two positioning devices. Materials and methods: A total of 35 patients of stage II and III cervical cancers were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups, one using knee wedge and the other using thermoplastic pelvic mask as an immobilization device. Radiation was planned by four field box conformal technique. The random and systematic setup errors were then calculated for each patient in both the groups in the mediolateral (ML), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. Results: The translational mean setup variation in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical direction is 0.17 ± 0.24, −0.12 ± 0.48, and −0.18 ± 0.27 cm for thermoplastic pelvic mask and −0.03 ± 0.26, −0.04 ± 0.48, and −0.09 ± 0.37 cm for knee wedge, respectively. The systematic setup error and random errors were 0.24, 0.48, 0.27 cm and 0.31, 0.60, and 0.40 cm for thermoplastic mask and 0.26, 0.48, and 0.37 cm and 0.38, 0.37, and 0.45 cm for knee wedge in ML, SI, and AP axis, respectively. The one way analysis of variance test was applied to compare the setup errors in between the three axes for both the immobilization devices. To compare the positioning accuracy of thermoplastic mask and knee wedge, Student's t-test was applied. Both the tests were found to be insignificant (P value > 0.05). Conclusion: Thermoplastic mask and knee wedge are equally effective as immobilization devices for treating cervical cancers with conformal techniques.


Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow