Daily online bony correction is required for prostate patients without fiducial markers or soft-tissue imaging

First experimental evaluation of multi-target multileaf collimator tracking during volumetric modulated arc therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Locally advanced and oligometastatic cancer patients require radiotherapy treatment to multiple independently moving targets. There is no existing commercial solution that can simultaneously track and treat multiple targets. This study experimentally implemented and evaluated a real-time multi-target tracking system for locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

Real-time multi-target MLC tracking was integrated with 3D x-ray image guidance on a standard linac. Three locally advanced prostate cancer treatment plans were delivered to a static lymph node phantom and dynamic prostate phantom that reproduced three prostate trajectories. Treatments were delivered using multi-target MLC tracking, single-target MLC tracking, and no tracking. Doses were measured using Gafchromic film placed in the dynamic and static phantoms. Dosimetric error was quantified by the 2%/2 mm gamma failure rate. Geometric error was evaluated as the misalignment between target and aperture positions. The multi-target tracking system latency was measured.

RESULTS

The mean (range) gamma failure rates for the prostate and lymph nodes, were 18.6% (5.2%, 28.5%) and 7.5% (1.1%, 13.7%) with multi-target tracking, 7.9% (0.7%, 15.4%) and 37.8% (18.0%, 57.9%) with single-target tracking, and 38.1% (0.6%, 75.3%) and 37.2% (29%, 45.3%) without tracking. Multi-target tracking had the lowest geometric error with means and standard deviations within 0.2 ± 1.5 for the prostate and 0.0 ± 0.3 mm for the lymph nodes. The latency was 730 ± 20 ms.

CONCLUSION

This study presented the first experimental implementation of multi-target tracking to independently track prostate and lymph node displacement during VMAT. Multi-target tracking reduced dosimetric and geometric errors compared to single-target tracking and no tracking.

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.

Evaluation of different set-up error corrections on dose-volume metrics in prostate IMRT using CBCT images

We investigated the effect of different set-up error corrections on dose-volume metrics in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer under different planning target volume (PTV) margin settings using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. A total of 30 consecutive patients who underwent IMRT for prostate cancer were retrospectively analysed, and 7-14 CBCT datasets were acquired per patient. Interfractional variations in dose-volume metrics were evaluated under six different set-up error corrections, including tattoo, bony anatomy, and four different target matching groups. Set-up errors were incorporated into planning the isocenter position, and dose distributions were recalculated on CBCT images. These processes were repeated under two different PTV margin settings. In the on-line bony anatomy matching groups, systematic error (∑) was 0.3 mm, 1.4 mm, and 0.3 mm in the left-right, anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior directions, respectively. ∑ in three successive off-line target matchings was finally comparable with that in the on-line bony anatomy matching in the AP direction. Although doses to the rectum and bladder wall were reduced for a small PTV margin, averaged reductions in the volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose from planning were within 2.5% under all PTV margin settings for all correction groups, with the exception of the tattoo set-up error correction only (≥ 5.0%). Analysis of variance showed no significant difference between on-line bony anatomy matching and target matching. While variations between the planned and delivered doses were smallest when target matching was applied, the use of bony anatomy matching still ensured the planned doses.

Determination of optimal fiducial marker across image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) modalities: visibility and artifact analysis of gold, carbon, and polymer fiducial markers

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visibility and artifact created by gold, carbon, and polymer fiducial markers in a simple phantom across computed tomography (CT), kilovoltage (kV), and megavoltage (MV) linear accelerator imaging and MV tomotherapy imaging. Three types of fiducial markers (gold, carbon, and polymer) were investigated for their visibility and artifacts in images acquired with various modalities and with different imaging parameters (kV, mAs, slice thickness). The imaging modalities include kV CT, 2D linac‐based kilovoltage and megavoltage X‐ray imaging systems, kV cone‐beam CT, and normal and fine tomotherapy imaging. The images were acquired on a phantom constructed using Superflab bolus in which markers of each type were inserted into the center layer. The visibility and artifacts produced by each marker were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. All tested markers could be identified clearly on the acquired CT and linac‐based kV images; gold markers demonstrated the highest contrast. On the CT images, gold markers produced a significant artifact, while no artifacts were observed with polymer markers. Only gold markers were visible when using linac‐based MV and tomotherapy imaging. For linac‐based kV images, the contrast increased with kV and mAs values for all the markers, with the gold being the most pronounced. On CT images, the contrast increased with kV for the gold markers, while decreasing for the polymer and carbon marker. With the bolus phantom used, we found that when kV imaging‐based treatment verification equipment is available, polymer and carbon markers may be the preferred choice for target localization and patient treatment positioning verification due to less image artifacts. If MV imaging will be the sole modality for positioning verification, it may be necessary to use gold markers despite the artifacts they create on the simulation CT images.

PACS number: 87

Impact of the frequency of online verifications on the patient set-up accuracy and set-up margins

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the patient set-up error of different anatomical sites, to estimate the effect of different frequencies of online verifications on the patient set-up accuracy, and to calculate margins to accommodate for the patient set-up error (ICRU set-up margin, SM).

Methods and materials

Alignment data of 148 patients treated with inversed planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) of the head and neck (n = 31), chest (n = 72), abdomen (n = 15), and pelvis (n = 30) were evaluated. The patient set-up accuracy was assessed using orthogonal megavoltage electronic portal images of 2328 fractions of 173 planning target volumes (PTV). In 25 patients, two PTVs were analyzed where the PTVs were located in different anatomical sites and treated in two different radiotherapy courses. The patient set-up error and the corresponding SM were retrospectively determined assuming no online verification, online verification once a week and online verification every other day.

Results

The SM could be effectively reduced with increasing frequency of online verifications. However, a significant frequency of relevant set-up errors remained even after online verification every other day. For example, residual set-up errors larger than 5 mm were observed on average in 18% to 27% of all fractions of patients treated in the chest, abdomen and pelvis, and in 10% of fractions of patients treated in the head and neck after online verification every other day.

Conclusion

In patients where high set-up accuracy is desired, daily online verification is highly recommended.