The impact of a prophylactic skin dressing on surface-guided patient positioning in chest wall Radiation Therapy

James Cumming; Kenton Thompson; Katrina Woodford; Vanessa Panettieri; Daniel Sapkaroski

doi:10.1002/jmrs.781

The impact of a prophylactic skin dressing on surface-guided patient positioning in chest wall Radiation Therapy

J Med Radiat Sci. 2024 Mar 25. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.781. Online ahead of print.

Authors

James Cumming¹, Kenton Thompson¹, Katrina Woodford^{1

2}, Vanessa Panettieri^{2

3

4}, Daniel Sapkaroski^{1

2

5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Therapy Services, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
² Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
³ Department of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁴ Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁵ Department of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
⁶ The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

PMID: 38525921
DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.781

Abstract

Introduction: Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) has emerged as a powerful tool to improve patient setup accuracy in radiation therapy (RT). Combined with the goal of increasing RT accuracy is an ongoing effort to decrease RT side effects. The application of a prophylactic skin dressing to the treatment site is a well-documented method of reducing skin-related side effects from RT. This paper aims to investigate whether the application of Mepitel, a prophylactic skin dressing, has an impact on the accuracy of surface-guided patient setups in chest wall RT.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of daily image-guided Online Corrections (OLCs) from patients undergoing chest wall irradiation with SGRT was performed. Translational (superior-inferior, lateral, and anterior-posterior) OLC magnitude and direction were compared between patients treated with Mepitel applied and those treated without. Systematic and random errors were calculated and compared between groups.

Results: OLCs from 275 fractions were analysed. Mean OLCs were larger for patients with Mepitel applied in the superior_inferior axis (0.34 vs. 0.22 cm, P = 0.049) and for the combined translational vector (0.54 vs. 0.43 cm, P = 0.043). Combined translational systematic error was slightly larger for patients with Mepitel applied (0.15 vs. 0.09 cm).

Conclusion: Mepitel can impact the accuracy of SGRT patient-positioning in chest wall RT. The variation however is small and unlikely to have any clinical impact if SGRT is coupled with image guidance and appropriate PTV margins. Further investigation is required to assess the effect of Mepitel on SGRT accuracy in other treatment sites, as well as any potential dosimetric impacts.

Keywords: Breast; Mepitel; chest wall; radiation therapy; radiotherapy; skin dressing; surface guided radiation therapy.

© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology.