A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate three immobilisation devices for intra-thoracic radiation therapy

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/621276
Title:
A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate three immobilisation devices for intra-thoracic radiation therapy
Authors:
O'Shea, Evelyn; Armstrong, John; Gillham, Charles; McCloy, Roisin; Murrells, Rachel; O'Hara, Tom; Clayton-Lea, Angela; Murphy, Michael; Browne, Patricia; Booth, Catherine; Thirion, Pierre
Citation:
A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate three immobilisation devices for intra-thoracic radiation therapy 2010, 9 (02):65 Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Journal:
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Issue Date:
7-Jul-2010
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/621276
DOI:
10.1017/S1460396910000038
Additional Links:
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1460396910000038
Abstract:
Purpose: To determine the optimal of three immobilisation devices for lung radiotherapy in terms of set-up reproducibility, patient comfort, radiation therapists’ (RTs) satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods: A total of 30 lung CRT patients were randomised to one of three immobilisation techniques – Arm A, headsponge; Arm B, BreastBoard dedicated immobilisation device; and Arm C, LungBoard dedicated immobilisation device. Results: Random errors were larger for Arm A versus C in all directions ( p < 0.05). Random errors were larger for Arm A versus B for y and z directions ( p < 0.05). When the data for the immobilisation devices (Arms B+C) were pooled and compared with Arm A (no dedicated device), the systematic errors were larger in the z direction for A ( p < 0.05). Arm C was cheaper and was more comfortable for patients. Therapists preferred this device (Arm C) and treatment times were less ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomised controlled lung immobilisation trial, based on 3-DCRT, that takes into account treatment accuracy, users satisfaction and resource implications. It suggests that the LungBoard immobilisation device is optimal.
Item Type:
Article
Keywords:
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CANCER; RADIATION THERAPY
ISSN:
1460-3969; 1467-1131

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorO'Shea, Evelynen
dc.contributor.authorArmstrong, Johnen
dc.contributor.authorGillham, Charlesen
dc.contributor.authorMcCloy, Roisinen
dc.contributor.authorMurrells, Rachelen
dc.contributor.authorO'Hara, Tomen
dc.contributor.authorClayton-Lea, Angelaen
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Michaelen
dc.contributor.authorBrowne, Patriciaen
dc.contributor.authorBooth, Catherineen
dc.contributor.authorThirion, Pierreen
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-20T08:42:52Z-
dc.date.available2017-04-20T08:42:52Z-
dc.date.issued2010-07-07-
dc.identifier.citationA prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate three immobilisation devices for intra-thoracic radiation therapy 2010, 9 (02):65 Journal of Radiotherapy in Practiceen
dc.identifier.issn1460-3969-
dc.identifier.issn1467-1131-
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S1460396910000038-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/621276-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To determine the optimal of three immobilisation devices for lung radiotherapy in terms of set-up reproducibility, patient comfort, radiation therapists’ (RTs) satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods: A total of 30 lung CRT patients were randomised to one of three immobilisation techniques – Arm A, headsponge; Arm B, BreastBoard dedicated immobilisation device; and Arm C, LungBoard dedicated immobilisation device. Results: Random errors were larger for Arm A versus C in all directions ( p < 0.05). Random errors were larger for Arm A versus B for y and z directions ( p < 0.05). When the data for the immobilisation devices (Arms B+C) were pooled and compared with Arm A (no dedicated device), the systematic errors were larger in the z direction for A ( p < 0.05). Arm C was cheaper and was more comfortable for patients. Therapists preferred this device (Arm C) and treatment times were less ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomised controlled lung immobilisation trial, based on 3-DCRT, that takes into account treatment accuracy, users satisfaction and resource implications. It suggests that the LungBoard immobilisation device is optimal.en
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1460396910000038en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Journal of Radiotherapy in Practiceen
dc.subjectMEDICAL EQUIPMENTen
dc.subjectCLINICAL TRIALen
dc.subjectCANCERen
dc.subjectRADIATION THERAPYen
dc.titleA prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate three immobilisation devices for intra-thoracic radiation therapyen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Radiotherapy in Practiceen
dc.description.fundingNo fundingen
dc.description.provinceLeinsteren
dc.description.peer-reviewpeer-reviewen
All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.