ESTRO 2023 - Abstract Book

S2024

Digital Posters

ESTRO 2023

Conclusion The overall aim was to evaluate the use of PBM in the effective management of OM in patients receiving radiotherapy. In the acute setting PBM has not shown to be significantly more effective than the department’s current pathway for the management of OM, however PBM may hold some benefit in the management of other radiotherapy side effects.

PO-2250 SGRT for whole breast radiotherapy treatments: accuracy compared to conventional tattoo method

C. Marino 1 , C. Gigliuto 2 , E. Bonanno 1 , G. Borzì 1 , N. Cavalli 1 , A. Girlando 3 , A.M. Gueli 4 , M. Pace 1 , G. Stella 4 , L. Zirone 1

1 Humanitas Istituto Clinico Catanese, Medical Physics Department, Misterbianco (CT), Italy; 2 University of Catania, School of Medical Physics, Catania, Italy; 3 Humanitas Istituto Clinico Catanese, Radiotherapy Department, Misterbianco (CT), Italy; 4 University of Catania, Physics and Astronomy E. Majorana, Catania, Italy Purpose or Objective SGRT systems allow to verify patients positioning before and during radiation treatments; our study compares the magnitude of patients shifts applied using IGRT for whole breast treatments before and after SGRT systems installation. Materials and Methods In October 2021, Humanitas ICC Radiotherapy department was provided by SGRT systems for all available TrueBeam machines and after the training time we started with tatooless approach for all breast treatments. In order to evaluate the expected benefit of using a large surface with SGRT instead of the traditional skin 3 marked points, we compared the magnitude of applied shifts obtained using IGRT for a total of 30 patients (20 IMRT, 10 IMRT-DIBH) positioned using skin marks and 30 patients (20 IMRT, 10 IMRT-DIBH) positioned using the SGRT system (AlignRT - VisionRT, London, UK). Results The magnitude of applied shifts was evaluated from 960 treatment fractions. Daily setup errors were given as absolute displacements from IGRT verifications both for conventional approach (using skin marks setup) and tatooless approach (using SGRT setup); mean absolute shifts values related to the conventional skin marks setup approach and IGRT were compared with mean absolute shifts values obtained using the surface-based imaging system and IGRT. Averaged over all patients, the mean absolute applied shifts (Figure 1) was 6.59 ± 2.2 mm for 20 IMRT treatments using skin marks setup and 2.32 ± 0.4 mm for the same number of IMRT treatments using SGRT setup (tatooless approach); in the same way, the mean absolute applied shifts (Figure 2) was 8.3 ± 2.1 mm for 10 IMRT-DIBH treatments using skin marks setup and 5.86 ± 2.0 mm for the same number of IMRT-DIBH treatments using SGRT setup.