Evaluation and verification of the QFix EncompassTM couch insert for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery

A prospective randomized study comparing two frameless immobilization systems for cranial stereotactic radiotherapy

Introduction

The Dual Shell Encompass Fibreplast™ System (DS-Encompass) by CQ Medical™ is validated for frameless immobilization in stereotactic brain radiotherapy. An alternative mask model has been proposed with the rear shell replaced by a Moldcare® cushion (M-Encompass). To validate the use of this model in our cranial stereotactic workflow method including HyperArc™, we performed a prospective randomized study comparing inter-and intrafractional motion and patients comfort between both masks.

Materials & Methods

A prospective randomized study between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was conducted involving 60 participants. Stratification between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was carried out based on the fractionation scheme. Treatment plans were created with HyperArc™. During treatment, surface guidance was used for patient positioning and monitoring. A pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) was acquired to correct interfractional motion and a post-treatment CBCT was acquired to quantify the intrafractional motion. Patients reported comfort was analyzed with a Likert-scale at the end of the treatment. Unpaired t-tests were conducted to determine the level of significance.

Results

No significant difference in interfractional translations is present. A significant difference is revealed in roll-axis rotation, where DS-Encompass allows for smaller deviations. Since interfractional motion can be corrected through daily CBCT-scans and 6D-couch corrections, they are clinically irrelevant. Intrafractional motion does not differ significantly and remains below 0.5 mm and 0.5° for both systems. There is no statistical difference in patient-reported comfort.

Conclusion

We conclude that Encompass with Moldcare offers a safe alternative to Duall Shell Encompass for non-coplanar stereotactic brain radiotherapy. There is no significant difference in intrafractional motion nor difference in comfort levels.

The effects of distance between the imaging isocenter and brain center on the image quality of cone-beam computed tomography for brain stereotactic irradiation

In linear accelerator-based stereotactic irradiation (STI) for brain metastasis, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality is essential for ensuring precise patient setup and tumor localization. However, CBCT images may be degraded by the deviation of the CBCT isocenter from the brain center. This study aims to investigate the effects of the distance from the brain center to the CBCT isocenter (DBI) on the image quality in STI. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with varying DBI in right, anterior, superior, and inferior directions. Thirty patients undergoing STI were prospectively recruited. Objective metrics, utilizing regions of interest included contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the centrum semiovale, lateral ventricle, and basal ganglia levels, gray and white matter noise at the basal ganglia level, artifact index (AI), and nonuniformity (NU). Two radiation oncologists assessed subjective metrics. In this phantom study, objective measures indicated a degradation in image quality for non-zero DBI. In this patient study, there were significant correlations between the CNR at the centrum semiovale and lateral ventricle levels (rs = - 0.79 and - 0.77, respectively), gray matter noise (rs = 0.52), AI (rs = 0.72), and NU (rs = 0.91) and DBI. However, no significant correlations were observed between the CNR at the basal ganglia level, white matter noise, and subjective metrics and DBI (rs < ± 0.3). Our results demonstrate the effects of DBI on contrast, noise, artifacts in the posterior fossa, and uniformity of CBCT images in STI. Aligning the CBCT isocenter with the brain center can aid in improving image quality.

Verification of Qfix Encompass™ couch modeling using the Acuros XB algorithm and HypeArc™ using a high-spatial-resolution two-dimensional diode array

We modeled the Qfix Encompass™ immobilization system and further verified the calculated dose distribution of the AcurosXB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm using SRS MapCHECKⓇ (SRSMC) in the HyperArc™ (HA) clinical plan. An Encompass system with a StereoPHAN™ QA phantom was scanned by SOMATOM go.Sim and imported to an Eclipse™ treatment planning system to create a treatment plan for Encompass modeling. The Encompass modeling was performed in the StereoPHAN with a pinpoint ion chamber for 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter free (6 MV FFF), and 2 × 2 cm2, 4 × 4 cm2, and 6 × 6 cm2 irradiation field sizes. The dose calculation algorithm used was AXB ver. 15.5 with a 1.0 mm calculation grid size. The Hounsfield unit (HU) values of the Encompass modeling were set to 400, -100, -200, and -300 for Encompass, and -400, -600, -700, and -800 for the Encompass base. We evaluated the dose distribution after Encompass modeling by SRSMC using gamma analysis in 12 patients. We adopted HU values of -200 for Encompass, -800 for Encompass base for 6 MV, and -200 for Encompass and -700 for Encompass. Base for 6 MV FFF was adopted as the HU values for the Encompass modeling based on the measurement results. The proposed Encompass modeling resulted in a mean pass rate evaluation >98% for both 6 MV and 6 MV FFF when the 1%/1 mm criterion was used, demonstrating that the proposed HU value can be adopted to calculate more accurate dose distributions.

Evaluation of HyperArc™ using film and portal dosimetry quality assurance

HyperArc™ is a stereotactic radiotherapy modality designed for targeting multiple brain metastases using a single isocenter with multiple non-coplanar arcs. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of two patient-specific quality assurance methods, film and the Varian Portal Dosimetry System with Varian's HyperArc™ technique and raise important considerations in the customisation of patient-specific quality assurance to accommodate HyperArc™ delivery. Assessment criteria included gamma analysis and mean dose at full width half maximum. The minimum metastasis size, maximum off-axis distance and suitable energy were identified and validated. Patient-specific quality assurance procedures were applied to a range of clinically relevant brain metastasis plans. Initial investigation into energy selection showed no significant differences in gamma pass rates using 6MV, 6MV FFF, or 10MV FFF for metastasis sizes greater than 15 mm diameter at the isocenter. Gamma pass rates (2%/2mm) for 15 mm metastases at the isocenter for all energies were greater than 96.0% for portal dosimetry and greater than 98.7% for film. Fields of size 15 mm placed at various distances (10-70 mm) from the isocenter resulted in a maximum mean dose difference of 1.5% between film and planned. Clinically relevant plans resulted in a maximum mean dose difference for selected metastases of 1.0% between film and plan and a maximum point dose difference of 2.9% between portal dose and plan. Portal dose image prediction was a quick and convenient quality assurance tool for metastases larger than 15 mm near the isocenter but provided diminished geometrical relevance for off-axis metastases. Film QA required exacting procedures but offered the ability to assess the accuracy of geometrical targeting for off-axis metastases and provided dosimetric accuracy for metastases to well below 15 mm diameter.

Intra-fractional patient motion when using the Qfix Encompass immobilization system during HyperArc treatment of patients with brain metastases

Purpose

This study investigated the intra‐fractional motion (IM) of patients immobilized using the QFix Encompass Immobilization System during HyperArc (HA) treatment.

Method

HA treatment was performed on 89 patients immobilized using the Encompass. The IM during treatment (including megavoltage (MV) registration) was analyzed for six degrees of freedom including three axes of translation (anterior‐posterior, superior‐inferior (SI) and left‐right (LR)) and three axes of rotation (pitch, roll, and yaw). Then, the no corrected IM (IM_NC) was retrospectively simulated (excluding MV registration) in three directions (SI, LR, and yaw). Finally, the correlation between the treatment time and the IM of the 3D vector was assessed.

Results

The average IM in terms of the absolute displacement were 0.3 mm (SI), 0.3 mm (LR) and 0.2° (yaw) for Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and 0.3 mm (SI), 0.2 mm (LR), and 0.2° (yaw) for stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). The absolute maximum values of IM were <1 mm along the SI and LR axes and <1° along the yaw axis. The absolute maximum displacements for IM_NC were >1 mm along the SI and LR axes and >1° along the yaw axis. In the correlation between the treatment time and the IM, the r‐values were −0.025 and 0.027 for SRS and SRT respectively, along the axes of translation. For the axes of rotation, the r‐values were 0.012 and 0.206 for SRS and SRT, respectively.

Conclusion

Encompass provided patient immobilization with adequate accuracy during HA treatment. The absolute maximum displacement IM was less than IM_NC along the translational/rotational axes, and no statistically significant relationship between the treatment time and the IM was observed.

Intra-fractional patient setup error during fractionated intracranial stereotactic irradiation treatment of patients wearing medical masks: comparison with and without bite block during COVID-19 pandemic

The immobilization of patients with a bite block (BB) carries the risk of interpersonal infection, particularly in the context of pandemics such as COVID-19. Here, we compared the intra-fractional patient setup error (intra-SE) with and without a BB during fractionated intracranial stereotactic irradiation (STI). Fifteen patients with brain metastases were immobilized using a BB without a medical mask, while 15 patients were immobilized without using a BB and with a medical mask. The intra-SEs in six directions (anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR), pitch, roll, and yaw) were calculated by using cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before and after the treatments. We analyzed a total of 53 and 67 treatment sessions for the with- and without-BB groups, respectively. A comparable absolute mean translational and rotational intra-SE was observed (P > 0.05) in the AP (0.19 vs 0.23 mm with- and without-BB, respectively), SI (0.30 vs 0.29 mm), LR (0.20 vs 0.29 mm), pitch (0.18 vs 0.27°), roll (0.23 vs 0.23°) and yaw (0.27 vs 22°) directions. The resultant planning target volume (PTV) margin to compensate for intra-SE was <1 mm. No statistically significant correlation was observed between the intra-SE and treatment times. A PTV margin of <1 mm was achieved even when patients were immobilized without a BB during STI dose delivery.

Assessment of single isocenter linear accelerator radiosurgery for metastases and base of skull lesions

BACKGROUND

Newer technology for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should be assessed for different multi-leaf collimators (MLC).

OBJECTIVE

Assess plan quality of an automated, frameless, linear accelerator based (linac) planning and delivery system (HyperArc) for SRS using both standard MLC (SMLC) and high definition MLC (HDMLC) compared to a cobalt-60 based SRS system (Gamma Knife, GK).

METHODS

We re-planned twenty GK Perfexion-treated SRS patients (27 lesions) for HyperArc using SMLC and HDMLC. We assessed plan quality using the following metrics: gradient index (GI), Paddick and RTOG conformity indices (CI_Paddick, CI_RTOG), volume receiving half of prescription isodose (PIV_half) and maximum dose to 0.03 cc for brainstem, optic chiasm and optic nerves, and V12Gy for brain-GTV.

RESULTS

Linac plans had better conformity with HDMLC being most conformal. GK exhibited better GI. PIV_half demonstrated no statistically significant difference between HDMLC and GK, and SMLC was nominally worse than GK. Mean PIV_half was generally 0.85 cc larger for SMLC than HDMLC. For TV > 1.0 cc, the relative differences in CI_RTOG, GI, and PIV_half for SMLC vs. HDMLC were less than 21%. For TV less than < 1.0 cc, there were more obvious relative differences for SMLC vs. HDMLC in CI_RTOG (mean 146%, max 700%), GI (mean 49%, max 162%), and PIV_half (mean 77%, max 522%). Organ at risk doses were met in all plans.

CONCLUSIONS

New linac-based plans positively compare to GK plans overall. HDMLC should be strongly considered for treatment of lesions < 1.0 cc given the significant improvements in conformity and PIV_half over SMLC.

Intrafraction motion during frameless radiosurgery using Varian HyperArcTM and BrainLab ElementsTM immobilization systems

Commercial systems such as Varian HyperArcTM and BrainLab Elements MultiMetTM have been developed that allow radiosurgery treatment of multiple brain metastases using a single isocenter. Each software package places increased demands on frameless immobilization and requires the use of a specific immobilization system: the QFix-Encompass system for Varian and the BrainLab frameless-mask system for BrainLab. At our institution, patients receiving traditional radiosurgery (one isocenter per target lesion) were treated using both immobilization systems. Intrafraction motion was determined for each patient using multiple cone-beam CT scans and the same image-registration software during treatment. There were no statistically-significant differences in mean absolute translational shifts between the two mask systems, with a mean 3D-vector motion of approximately 0.43 mm for both systems. There were also no statistically-significant differences in the mean absolute rotational shifts between the two mask systems. Although the average residual errors were insignificant between the mask systems, special attention should be paid to individual maximum shifts with both systems. Large maximum rotational misalignments could present significant misalignment of lesions as distance increases from the isocenter. Finally, large maximum shifts highlight the need for real-time monitoring of patient movement during radiosurgery of multiple lesions using a single isocenter.