Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Pioneering Patient-Specific Approaches for Precision Surgery Using Imaging and Virtual Reality
Published on: April 5, 2024
Comparison of simulator-CT versus simulator fluoroscopy versus surface marking based radiation treatment planning: a
Virender Suhag1, Vivek Kaushal, Rohtash Yadav
1Department of Radiotherapy, Pt. B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Haryana, India. vkaushal2003@yahoo.com
Background And Purpose:
Field placement for Radiation Treatment Planning can be done based on the surface markings or simulator fluoroscopy or simulator with CT facilities. A prospective study was carried out to compare these three techniques of radiation treatment planning to quantitatively find out the difference in normal tissue dosages and target volume coverage in the three groups after three-dimensional evaluation.
Patients And Methods:
The CT scans of 30 patients in the treatment position, taken on a Shimadzu SCT-3000 TF scanner at 1cm intervals, were transferred to Theraplan-500 three-dimensional radiation treatment planning computer. The normal tissues and target volumes (GTV and CTV) were outlined on all the CT slices as per (ICRU) Report no. 50. Three types of radiation treatment planning was done sequentially: Plan I-based on the surface markings alone, Plan II-based on simulator-fluoroscopy, and Plan III-based on Simulator-CT.
Results:
The mean dose to 95% of the clinical target volume (D95) was increased by 4.4 and 6.4% by Plans II and III as compared with Plan I. The mean dose to 3/3rd (D(3/3)) to all the critical organs was decreased by 6.6 and 8.4% by Plans II and III as compared to Plan I. The mean time, in simulator room, for field placement for Plans I-III was 6.2, 14.6 and 44 min, respectively.
Conclusions:
Thus for adequate coverage of target volumes and sparing normal tissues, Simulator-CT based radiation treatment planning is the best method of radiation treatment planning though it is more time consuming.
