A Comparison of In-Room Computerized Tomography Options for Detection of Fiducial Markers in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

The potential failure risk of the cone-beam computed tomography-based planning target volume margin definition for prostate image-guided radiotherapy based on a prospective single-institutional hybrid analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of markerless on-board kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based positioning uncertainty on determination of the planning target volume (PTV) margin by comparison with kV on-board imaging (OBI) with gold fiducial markers (FMs), and to validate a methodology for the evaluation of PTV margins for markerless kV-CBCT in prostate image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

Methods

A total of 1177 pre- and 1177 post-treatment kV-OBI and 1177 pre- and 206 post-treatment kV-CBCT images were analyzed in 25 patients who received prostate IGRT with daily localization by implanted FMs. Intrafractional motion of the prostate was evaluated between each pre- and post-treatment image with these two different techniques. The differences in prostate deviations and intrafractional motions between matching by FM in kV-OBI (OBI-FM) and matching by soft tissues in kV-CBCT (CBCT-ST) were compared by Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Compensated PTV margins were determined and compensated by references.

Results

Mean differences between OBI-FM and CBCT-ST in the anterior to posterior (AP), superior to inferior (SI), and left to right (LR) directions were − 0.43 ± 1.45, − 0.09 ± 1.65, and − 0.12 ± 0.80 mm, respectively, with R² = 0.85, 0.88, and 0.83, respectively. Intrafractional motions obtained from CBCT-ST were 0.00 ± 1.46, 0.02 ± 1.49, and 0.15 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, which were smaller than the results from OBI-FM, with 0.43 ± 1.90, 0.12 ± 1.98, and 0.26 ± 0.80 mm, respectively, with R² = 0.42, 0.33, and 0.16, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a significant proportional bias. PTV margins of 1.5 mm, 1.4 mm, and 0.9 mm for CBCT-ST were calculated from the values of CBCT-ST, which were also smaller than the values of 3.15 mm, 3.66 mm, and 1.60 mm from OBI-FM. The practical PTV margin for CBCT-ST was compensated with the values from OBI-FM as 4.1 mm, 4.8 mm, and 2.2 mm.

Conclusions

PTV margins calculated from CBCT-ST might be underestimated compared to the true PTV margins. To determine a reliable CBCT-ST-based PTV margin, at least the systemic error Σ and the random error σ for on-line matching errors need to be investigated by supportive preliminary FM evaluation at least once.

Comparison of low-dose, half-rotation, cone-beam CT with electronic portal imaging device for registration of fiducial markers during prostate radiotherapy

This study evaluated the agreement of fiducial marker localization between two modalities — an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) — using a low‐dose, half‐rotation scanning protocol. Twenty‐five prostate cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were enrolled. Before each daily treatment, EPID and half‐rotation CBCT images were acquired. Translational shifts were computed for each modality and two marker‐matching algorithms, seed‐chamfer and grey‐value, were performed for each set of CBCT images. The localization offsets, and systematic and random errors from both modalities were computed. Localization performances for both modalities were compared using Bland‐Altman limits of agreement (LoA) analysis, Deming regression analysis, and Cohen's kappa inter‐rater analysis. The differences in the systematic and random errors between the modalities were within 0.2 mm in all directions. The LoA analysis revealed a 95% agreement limit of the modalities of 2 to 3.5 mm in any given translational direction. Deming regression analysis demonstrated that constant biases existed in the shifts computed by the modalities in the superior–inferior (SI) direction, but no significant proportional biases were identified in any direction. Cohen's kappa analysis showed good agreement between the modalities in prescribing translational corrections of the couch at 3 and 5 mm action levels. Images obtained from EPID and half‐rotation CBCT showed acceptable agreement for registration of fiducial markers. The seed‐chamfer algorithm for tracking of fiducial markers in CBCT datasets yielded better agreement than the grey‐value matching algorithm with EPID‐based registration.

PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr

A comparison of radiographic techniques and electromagnetic transponders for localization of the prostate

Background

The aim of this study is to compare three methodologies of prostate localization and to determine if there are significant differences in the techniques.

Methods

Daily prostate localization using cone beam CT or orthogonal kV imaging has been performed at UT Southwestern Medical Center since 2006. Prostate patients are implanted with gold seeds, which are matched with the planning CT or DRR before treatment. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso®). With each technology, patients are localized initially using skin marks and the room lasers. In this study, patients were localized with Calypso and either CBCT or kV orthogonal images in the same treatment session, allowing a direct comparison of the technologies. Localization difference distributions were determined from the difference in the offsets determined by CBCT/kV imaging and Calypso. CBCT-Calypso and kV imaging-Calypso localization data were summarized from over 900 and 250 fractions each, respectively. The Wilcoxon signed rank test is used to determine if the localization differences are statistically significant. We also calculated Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient (R²) to determine if there is a linear relationship between the shifts determined by Calypso and the radiographic techniques.

Results

The differences between CBCT-Calypso and kV imaging-Calypso localizations are −0.18 ± 2.90 mm, -0.79 ± 2.18 mm, -0.01 ± 1.20 mm and −0.09 ± 1.40 mm, 0.48 ± 1.50 mm, 0.08 ± 1.04 mm, respectively, in the AP, SI, and RL directions. The Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients for the CBCT-Calypso shifts were 0.71, 0.92 and 0.88 and for the OBI-Calypso comparison were 0.95, 0.89 and 0.85. The percentage of localization differences that were less than 3 mm were 86.1%, 84.5% and 96.0% for the CBCT-Calypso comparison and 95.8%, 94.3% and 97% for the kV OBI-Calypso comparison. No trends were observed in the Bland-Altman analysis.

Conclusions

Localization of the prostate using electromagnetic transponders agrees well with radiographic techniques and each technology is suitable for high precision radiotherapy. This study finds that there is more uncertainty in CBCT localization of the prostate than in 2D orthogonal imaging, but the difference is not clinically significant.

Efficacy of fiducial marker-based image-guided radiation therapy in prostate tomotherapy and potential dose coverage improvement using a patient positioning optimization method

PURPOSE

To evaluate the dose coverage efficacy of fiducial marker-based prostate tomotherapy and a positioning correction optimization technique for the improvement of suboptimal dose distributions.

METHODS

Three gold fiducial markers were implanted in prostate glands for patients who were to receive prostate tomotherapy. TomoTherapy megavoltage computed tomographies (MVCTs; TomoTherapy, Madison, WI) were routinely acquired at treatment and were registered to corresponding planning CTs based on the markers to correct for interfractional positioning deviations using translational table movements. The prostate glands and seminal vesicles were delineated on the MVCTs acquired for 10 patients at different treatment fractions and the treatment dose coverage was computed with the marker-based correction taken into account. The treatment dose coverage was compared with the corresponding plan to evaluate the efficacy of the marker-based image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) approach. Separately, a hill-climbing optimization algorithm was used to optimize the positioning by maximizing a dose-based objective function. During the optimization, the dose was constantly recomputed with the translational correction until an optimized dose coverage was reached. This optimized dose coverage was compared with the marker-based dose coverage to evaluate dosimetric improvement for treatments in which suboptimal dose distributions were observed after the marker-based corrections.

RESULTS

Suboptimal dose coverage of prostate glands and seminal vesicles were observed in about 8 and 6 of a total 75 fractions, respectively, after the marker-based IGRT positioning corrections. Six of the 10 patients experienced 1 or more factions of suboptimal prostate gland coverage and 2 of the 10 patients experienced 1 or more fractions of suboptimal seminal vesicle dose coverage. Utilization of the proposed positioning correction optimization method led to satisfactory dose coverage of both prostate glands and seminal vesicles for all 10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the planning target volume margin size specified in the current study, the fiducial marker-based IGRT approach may not be completely adequate to achieve desired dose coverage of the target volumes at every fraction. Due to relatively poor image quality of MVCTs, additional investigations may be required to confirm the finding. The proposed positioning correction optimization method is shown to effectively improve the observed suboptimal dose coverage of the target volumes.

Intracavitary combined with CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervical cancer: introduction of the technique and a case presentation

We report a new technique of brachytherapy consisting of intracavitary combined with computed tomography (CT)-guided interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. A Fletcher-Suit applicator and trocar point needles were used for performing high-dose rate brachytherapy under in-room CT guidance. First, a tandem and ovoids were implanted into the patient's vagina and uterus by conventional brachytherapy method. Based on clinical examination and MRI/CT imaging, operating radiation oncologists decided the positions of insertion in the tumor and the depth of the needles from the upper surface of the ovoid. Insertion of the needle applicator was performed from the vaginal vault inside the ovoid within the tumor under CT guidance. In treatment planning, dwell positions and time adaptations within the tandem and ovoids were performed first for optimization based on the Manchester system, and then stepwise addition of dwell positions within the needle was continued. Finally, dwell positions and dwell weights were manually modified until dose-volume constraints were optimally matched. In our pilot case, the dose of D90 to high-risk clinical target volume was improved from 3.5 Gy to 6.1 Gy by using our hybrid method on the dose-volume histogram. D1cc of the rectum, bladder and sigmoid colon by our hybrid method was 4.8 Gy, 6.4 Gy and 3.5 Gy, respectively. This method consists of advanced image-guided brachytherapy that can be performed safely and accurately. This approach has the potential of increasing target coverage, treated volume, and total dose without increasing the dose to organs at risk.