Quality improvement process to assess tattoo alignment, set-up accuracy and isocentre reproducibility in pelvic radiotherapy patients

Utility of a skin marker-less setup procedure using surface-guided imaging: a comparison with the traditional laser-based setup in extremity irradiation

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a skin marker-less patient setup using a surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for extremity radiotherapy. Twenty-five patients who underwent radiotherapy to the extremities were included in this retrospective study. The first group consisted of 10 patients and underwent a traditional setup procedure using skin marks and lasers. The second group comprised 15 patients and had a skin marker-less setup procedure that used an SGRT system only. To compare the two setup procedures for setup accuracy, the mean 3D vector shift magnitude was 0.9 mm for the traditional setup procedure and 0.5 mm for the skin marker-less setup procedure (p < 0.01). In addition, SGRT systems have been suggested to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of patient setups and consistently reduce interfractional setup errors. These results indicate that a skin marker-less patient setup procedure using an SGRT system is useful for extremity irradiation.

Augmented reality-guided positioning system for radiotherapy patients

In modern radiotherapy, error reduction in the patients’ daily setup error is important for achieving accuracy. In our study, we proposed a new approach for the development of an assist system for the radiotherapy position setup by using augmented reality (AR). We aimed to improve the accuracy of the position setup of patients undergoing radiotherapy and to evaluate the error of the position setup of patients who were diagnosed with head and neck cancer, and that of patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer. We acquired the patient's simulation CT data for the three‐dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the external surface and organs. The AR tracking software detected the calibration module and loaded the 3D virtual model. The calibration module was aligned with the Linac isocenter by using room lasers. And then aligned the virtual cube with the calibration module to complete the calibration of the 3D virtual model and Linac isocenter. Then, the patient position setup was carried out, and point cloud registration was performed between the patient and the 3D virtual model, such the patient's posture was consistent with the 3D virtual model. Twenty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer and 20 patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer in the supine position setup were analyzed for the residual errors of the conventional laser and AR‐guided position setup. Results show that for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer, the difference between the two positioning methods was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). For patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer, the residual errors of the two positioning methods in the superior and inferior direction and anterior and posterior direction were statistically significant (t = −5.80, −4.98, P < 0.05). The residual errors in the three rotation directions were statistically significant (t = −2.29 to −3.22, P < 0.05). The experimental results showed that the AR technology can effectively assist in the position setup of patients undergoing radiotherapy, significantly reduce the position setup errors in patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer, and improve the accuracy of radiotherapy.

Learning healthcare systems and rapid learning in radiation oncology: Where are we and where are we going?

Learning health systems and rapid-learning are well developed at the conceptual level. The promise of rapidly generating and applying evidence where conventional clinical trials would not usually be practical is attractive in principle. The connectivity of modern digital healthcare information systems and the increasing volumes of data accrued through patients' care pathways offer an ideal platform for the concepts. This is particularly true in radiotherapy where modern treatment planning and image guidance offers a precise digital record of the treatment planned and delivered. The vision is of real-world data, accrued by patients during their routine care, being used to drive programmes of continuous clinical improvement as part of standard practice. This vision, however, is not yet a reality in radiotherapy departments. In this article we review the literature to explore why this is not the case, identify barriers to its implementation, and suggest how wider clinical application might be achieved.

Set-up variation in palliative radiotherapy: one versus three skin localisation marks

Background:

Accuracy and reproducibility of the patient’s position is crucial for successful delivery of radiotherapy (RT). Data on palliative patients’ set-up uncertainties are sparse. The aim of this study was to calculate set-up errors observed for palliative patients positioned using one skin mark (Group 1) versus three skin marks (Group 2) and to assess the accuracy of both approaches.

Methods:

Displacements in the left–right (L–R) and superior–inferior (S–I) directions were retrospectively analysed for 175 sites treated with a course of fractionated palliative RT. Population mean, systematic and random errors were calculated in both directions for patients positioned with one and three skin marks. Frequency of deviations was also examined for both groups.

Results:

The population mean, systematic and random errors for Group 1 and 2 for the L–R direction were 0·0, 4·4, 4·8 and 0·4, 3·1 and 3·3 mm, respectively, and in the S–I direction: 0·1, 3·4, 4·2 and 1·2, 2·7 and 3·3 mm, respectively. Frequency of images within the clinical tolerance of 5 mm was 47·1% for Group 1 and 65·9% for Group 2.

Conclusion:

Three skin marks are recommended for patients receiving a fractionated course of palliative RT, as it reduces set-up error, reduces the number of gross displacements (>10 mm) and increases the number of displacements within the clinically acceptable tolerance of 5 mm.

Comparison of initial patient setup accuracy between surface imaging and three point localization: A retrospective analysis

Purpose

Historically, the process of positioning a patient prior to imaging verification used a set of permanent patient marks, or tattoos, placed subcutaneously. After aligning to these tattoos, plan specific shifts are applied and the position is verified with imaging, such as cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT). Due to a variety of factors, these marks may deviate from the desired position or it may be hard to align the patient to these marks. Surface‐based imaging systems are an alternative method of verifying initial positioning with the entire skin surface instead of tattoos. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the CBCT‐based 3D corrections of patients initially positioned with tattoos against those positioned with the C‐RAD CatalystHD surface imager system.

Methods

A total of 6000 individual fractions (600–900 per site per method) were randomly selected and the post‐CBCT 3D corrections were calculated and recorded. For both positioning methods, four common treatment site combinations were evaluated: pelvis/lower extremities, abdomen, chest/upper extremities, and breast. Statistical differences were evaluated using a paired sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank test with significance level of <0.01.

Results

The average magnitudes of the 3D shift vectors for tattoos were 0.9 ± 0.4 cm, 1.0 ± 0.5 cm, 0.9 ± 0.6 cm and 1.4 ± 0.7 cm for the pelvis/lower extremities, abdomen, chest/upper extremities and breast, respectively. For the CatalystHD, the average magnitude of the 3D shifts for the pelvis/lower extremities, abdomen, chest/upper extremities and breast were 0.6 ± 0.3 cm, 0.5 ± 0.3 cm, 0.5 ± 0.3 cm and 0.6 ± 0.2 cm, respectively. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) in the 3D shift vectors were found for all four sites.

Conclusion

This study shows that the overall 3D shift corrections for patients initially aligned with the C‐RAD CatalystHD were significantly smaller than those aligned with subcutaneous tattoos. Surface imaging systems can be considered a viable option for initial patient setup and may be preferable to permanent marks for specific clinics and patients.

Quality improvement process to assess tattoo alignment, set-up accuracy and isocentre reproducibility in pelvic radiotherapy patients

INTRODUCTION

This quality improvement study tested three methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition to investigate if aligning lateral tattoos to minimise pitch, roll and yaw decreased set-up error, and if defining the isocentre using the lateral tattoos for cranio-caudal (CC) position improved isocentre reproducibility. The study population was patients receiving curative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. The results are applicable to all supine pelvic EBRT patients.

METHODS

The three sequential cohorts recruited 11, 11 and 10 patients respectively. A data set of 20 orthogonal pairs of electronic portal images (EPI) was acquired for each patient. EPIs were matched offline to digitally reconstructed radiographs. In cohort 1, lateral tattoos were adjusted to minimise roll. The anterior tattoo was used to define the isocentre. In cohort 2, lateral tattoos were aligned to minimise roll and yaw. Isocentre was defined as per cohort 1. In cohort 3, lateral tattoos were aligned as per cohort 2 and the anterior tattoo was adjusted to minimise pitch. Isocentre was defined by the lateral tattoos for CC position and the anterior tattoo for the left-right position.

RESULTS

Cohort 3 results were superior as CC systematic and random set-up errors reduced from -1.3 mm to -0.5 mm, and 3.1 mm to 1.4 mm respectively, from cohort 1 to cohort 3. Isocentre reproducibility also improved from 86.7% to 92.1% of treatment isocentres within 5 mm of the planned isocentre.

CONCLUSION

The methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition in cohort 3 reduced set-up errors and improved isocentre reproducibility.