Vol 26, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-03-30

open access

Page views 2087
Article views/downloads 818
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Comparison of three differently shaped ROIs in free breathing breast radiotherapy setup using surface guidance with AlignRT®

Marko Laaksomaa1, Torsten Moser2, Julia Kritz1, Kiira Pynnönen1, Maija Rossi13
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(4):545-552.


BACKGROUND: Setup accuracy within adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer treated in free breathing is well studied, but a comparison of the typical regions of interest (ROI) used in surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) does not exist.

The aim of this study was to estimate the setup accuracy obtained with differently shaped ROIs in SGRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 573 orthogonal image pairs were analyzed from free breathing breast patients in two groups: positioning using AlignRT® surface guidance system (Group A, n = 20), and setup using conventional laser and tattoo setup (Group L, n = 20). For SGRT, three different setup ROIs were used: a Breast-shaped, O-shaped and T-shaped (B-O and T-ROI). We evaluated the isocenter-, rotation-, pitch and arm position accuracy and residual errors for the chest wall and shoulder joint in kV orthogonal and tangential setup images with laser- or SGRT-based setup.

RESULTS: Less isocenter variance was found in Group A than in Group L. Rotations and posture errors were larger in group L than in Group A (p ≤ 0.05). Rotation error was smaller with T-shaped ROI than with O- or B-shape (p = 0.01–0.05).

CONCLUSION: Setup with AlignRT® improves reproducibility compared to laser setup. Between the different ROI shapes only small differences were found in the patient posture or the isocenter position in the images. The T-ROI is recommended to set up the chest wall bony structure and an additional B-ROI may be used to fine-tune the soft tissue accuracy. 

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Hegazy EA. Dosimetric comparison of Field in Field (FiF) and three dimensional planning techniques (3D) used in treatment of breast cancers. Glob J Phys. 2019; 9(1): 813–820.
  2. Pandeli C, Smyth LML, David S, et al. Dose reduction to organs at risk with deep-inspiration breath-hold during right breast radiotherapy: a treatment planning study. Radiat Oncol. 2019; 14(1): 223.
  3. Essers M, Poortmans PM, Verschueren K, et al. Should breathing adapted radiotherapy also be applied for right-sided breast irradiation? Acta Oncol. 2016; 55(4): 460–465.
  4. Batumalai V, Phan P, Choong C, et al. Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy. J Med Radiat Sci. 2016; 63(4): 224–231.
  5. Smith RP, Bloch P, Harris EE, et al. Analysis of interfraction and intrafraction variation during tangential breast irradiation with an electronic portal imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62(2): 373–378.
  6. Laaksomaa M, Kapanen M, Skyttä T, et al. Estimation of optimal matching position for orthogonal kV setup images and minimal setup margins in radiotherapy of whole breast and lymph node areas. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2014; 19(6): 369–375.
  7. Aiello D, Borzì G, Marino L, et al. Comparison of deep inspiration breath hold and free breathing technique in left breast cancer irradiation: a dosimetric evaluation in 40 patients. J Radiat Oncol. 2019.
  8. Rossi M, Boman E, Skyttä T, et al. Dosimetric effects of anatomical deformations and positioning errors in VMAT breast radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 19(5): 506–516.
  9. Johansen S, Fosså K, Nesvold IL, et al. Arm and shoulder morbidity following surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2014; 53(4): 521–529.
  10. Kapanen M, Laaksomaa M, Skyttä T, et al. Residual position errors of lymph node surrogates in breast cancer adjuvant radiotherapy: Comparison of two arm fixation devices and the effect of arm position correction. Med Dosim. 2016; 41(1): 47–52.
  11. Shah AP, Dvorak T, Curry MS, et al. Clinical evaluation of interfractional variations for whole breast radiotherapy using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013; 3(1): 16–25.
  12. Jimenez RB, Batin E, Giantsoudi D, et al. Tattoo free setup for partial breast irradiation: A feasibility study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(4): 45–50.
  13. Seppälä J, Vuolukka K, Virén T, et al. Breast deformation during the course of radiotherapy: The need for an additional outer margin. Phys Med. 2019; 65: 1–5.
  14. Padilla L, Kang H, Washington M, et al. Assessment of interfractional variation of the breast surface following conventional patient positioning for whole-breast radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(5): 4921.
  15. VisionRT. ROI-guidelines, user manual.
  16. Russell C, Mack H, Paul S, et al. OC-0190: Surface guided radiation therapy for breast cancer improves accuracy without the need for skin marks. Radiother Oncol. 2018; 127: S102.
  17. Hattel SH, Andersen PA, Wahlstedt IH, et al. Evaluation of setup and intrafraction motion for surface guided whole-breast cancer radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(6): 39–44.
  18. Cravo Sá A, Fermento A, Neves D, et al. Radiotherapy setup displacements in breast cancer patients: 3D surface imaging experience. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2018; 23(1): 61–67.
  19. Alderliesten T, Sonke JJ, Betgen A, et al. Application of 3D surface imaging in breast cancer radiotherapy. Medical Imaging 2012. Proceedings of the SPIE. 2012; 8316.
  20. Jensen CA, Acosta Roa AM, Lund JÅ, et al. Intrafractional baseline drift during free breathing breast cancer radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2017; 56(6): 867–873.
  21. Skyttä T, Kapanen M, Laaksomaa M, et al. Improving the reproducibility of voluntary deep inspiration breath hold technique during adjuvant left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2016; 55(8): 970–975.
  22. Laaksomaa M, Sarudis S, Rossi M, et al. AlignRT and Catalyst™ in whole-breast radiotherapy with DIBH: Is IGRT still needed? J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(3): 97–104.