A comparison of kV and MV imaging in head and neck image guided radiotherapy

MV CBCT based assessment of setup uncertainties and planning target volume margin in head and neck cancer

Background

Set-up errors are an undesirable part of the radiation treatment process. The goal of online imaging is to increase treatment accuracy by reducing the set-up errors. This study aimed to determine the daily variation of patient set-up uncertainties and planning target volume (PTV) margins for head and neck cancer patients using pre-treatment verification by mega voltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT).

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was internal record base of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy at our institution since the implementation of HalcyonTM 2.0 machine (Varian, US). Errors collected from each patient setup were recorded and evaluated for each direction [medio-lateral (ML), supero-inferior (SI), antero-posterior (AP)] discretely. For each patient, the systematic error (∑) and random error (σ) were collected. Clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was calculated using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62 (PTV margin = ( Σ 2 + σ 2 ) ), Stroom's (PTV margin = 2∑ + 0.7σ), and Van Herk's (PTV margin = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ) formula.

Results

A total of 7900 pre-treatment CBCT scans of 301 patients were analyzed and a total of 23,000 error measurements in the ML, SI, and AP directions were recorded. For all of our H&N cancer patients, the CTV to PTV margin, calculated from the van Herk formula for the head and neck patients was 0.49 mm in the anteroposterior axis.

Conclusions

An isometric PTV margin of 5 mm may be considered safe if daily imaging is not being done. In case daily online pretreatment imaging is being utilized, further reduction of PTV margin is possible.

Surface imaging for real-time patient positioning in external radiation therapy

PURPOSE

In the last few years, there has been a growing interest in surface imaging for patient positioning in external radiation therapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of daily patient positioning using the Azure Kinect surface imaging.

METHODS

A total of 50 fractions in 10 patients including lung, pelvic, and head and neck tumors were analyzed in real time. A rigid registration algorithm, based on the iterative closest point (ICP) approach, is employed to estimate the patient position in 6 degrees of freedom (DOF). This position is compared to the reference values obtained by the radiograph imaging. The mean setup error and its standard deviation were calculated for all measured fractions.

RESULTS

The positioning error showed 1.1 ± 1.1 mm in lateral, 1.8 ± 2.1 mm in longitudinal, and 0.8 ± 1.1 mm in vertical, and 0.3°± 0.4° in yaw, 0.2°± 0.2° in pitch, and 0.2°± 0.2° in roll directions. The larger setup error occurred in pelvic regions.

CONCLUSION

We have evaluated in a radiotherapy set-up considering different patient anatomical locations, a depth measurement based surface imaging solution for patient positioning considering the 6 DOF couch motion. We showed that the proposed solution allows an accurate patient positioning without the need for patient markings or the use of additional radiation dose.

A review of Image Guided Radiation Therapy in head and neck cancer from 2009-201 - Best Practice Recommendations for RTTs in the Clinic

Radiation therapy (RT) is beneficial in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) in both the definitive and adjuvant setting. Highly complex and conformal planning techniques are becoming standard practice in delivering increased doses in HNC. A sharp falloff in dose outside the high dose area is characteristic of highly complex techniques and geometric uncertainties must be minimised to prevent under dosage of the target volume and possible over dosage of surrounding critical structures. CTV-PTV margins are employed to account for geometric uncertainties such as set up errors and both interfraction and intrafraction motion. Robust immobilisation and Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) is also essential in this group of patients to minimise discrepancies in patient position during the treatment course. IGRT has evolved with increased 2-Dimensional (2D) and 3-Dimensional (3D) IGRT modalities available for geometric verification. 2D and 3D IGRT modalities are both beneficial in geometric verification while 3D imaging is a valuable tool in assessing volumetric changes that may have dosimetric consequences for this group of patients. IGRT if executed effectively and efficiently provides clinicians with confidence to reduce CTV-PTV margins thus limiting treatment related toxicities in patients. Accumulated exposure dose from IGRT vary considerably and may be incorporated into the treatment plan to avoid excess dose. However, there are considerable variations in the application of IGRT in RT practice. This paper aims to summarise the advances in IGRT in HNC treatment and provide clinics with recommendations for an IGRT strategy for HNC in the clinic.

The impact of reference isocentre position on set-up errors in head-and-neck image-guided radiotherapy

Aim

To examine and quantify set-up errors in patient positioning in head-and-neck radiotherapy and to investigate the impact of the choice of reference isocentre—on the patient neck or patient skull—on the magnitude of set-up errors.

Materials and methods

Set-up position corrections obtained using online kV 2D/2D matching were recorded automatically for every treatment fraction. 3,413 treatment records for 117 patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy during 2013 and 2014 on a single treatment machine in our clinic were analysed. In 79 treatment plans the reference isocentre was set to the patient skull, and in 47 to the neck.

Results

Standard deviation of group systematic error in the vertical, longitudinal and lateral direction and the couch rotation were found to be 2·5 mm, 2·1 mm, 1·9 mm and 0·43° (skull) and 2·5 mm, 1·8 mm, 1·7 mm and 0·49° (neck), respectively. Random error of the vertical, longitudinal, lateral and rotational position correction was 1·8 mm, 1·5 mm, 1·6 mm and 0·62° (skull) and 1·9 mm, 1·6 mm, 1·5 mm and 0·60° (neck), respectively. Positional shifts in different directions were found to be uncorrelated.

Conclusions

Neither reference isocentre set-up shows a clear advantage over the other in terms of interfraction set-up error.

Evaluation of Imaging Dose From Different Image Guided Systems During Head and Neck Radiotherapy: A Phantom Study

This work evaluated and compared the absorbed doses to selected organs in the head and neck region from the three image guided radiotherapy systems: cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and kilovoltage (kV) planar imaging using the On-board Imager® (OBI) as well as the ExacTrac® X-ray system, all available on the Varian Novalis TX linear accelerator. The head and neck region of an anthropomorphic phantom was used to simulate patients' head within the imaging field. Nanodots optically stimulated luminescent dosemeters were positioned at selected sites to measure the absorbed doses. CBCT was found to be delivering the highest dose to internal organs while OBI-2D gave the highest doses to the eye lenses. The setting of half-rotation in CBCT effectively reduces the dose to the eye lenses. Daily high-quality CBCT verification was found to increase the secondary cancer risk by 0.79%.

Analysis of Online and Offline Head and Neck Image-guided Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The introduction of a daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) program is an important step. It has implications for the radiation therapy team in terms of accuracy, workflow, and decision making. This study assesses how successful a radiation therapy department has been in using this technology and the accuracy of individual decision making when comparing online and offline image match data.

METHODS

Twenty intensity-modulated radiation therapy head and neck patients had their IGRT data assessed retrospectively. Online analysis was completed based on a 0-mm action threshold. Offline analysis was then conducted on the same data. Any discrepancies in decision making were then assessed.

RESULTS

Results indicated that the treating radiation therapy team was able to image match consistently when benchmarked against their colleagues in the offline environment. Analysis of online versus offline corrections in each of the three orthogonal directions showed strong agreement. Further analysis revealed no statistically significant differences for systematic errors, whereas a statistically significant but small difference was present for random error.

CONCLUSION

In this age of sophisticated equipment, daily IGRT is a valuable modality. However, the introduction of daily online IGRT inclusive of a 0-mm action threshold for head and neck IGRT requires careful consideration and evidence that such accuracy can be achieved. Ultimately, it is still the radiation therapist who must make the decision, which places great importance on the competency of the treating radiation therapy team.

Assessing the Efficiency and Consistency of Daily Image-guided Radiation Therapy in a Modern Radiotherapy Centre

BACKGROUND

Patients at Radiation Oncology Queensland Toowoomba are treated using the assistance of daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Each patient's daily setup is exposed to a number of variables. This study investigates the effect that these variables have on the total time taken to analyse field placement and the total time taken for treatment, as well accessing setup error across a variety of treatment types.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 80 patients across a variety of treatment sites where daily IGRT was undertaken using kilovoltage and megavoltage orthogonal images. Variables investigated include the treatment type, the imaging modality used, and the setup error of each session. Statistical analysis was then performed on the data.

RESULTS

Patients being treated in the thoracic region had the greatest random setup error. The mean matching times were also longer for chest patients (197 seconds), whereas there were minimal differences in times regarding modality. Treatment times were longest for head and neck variables (399-405 seconds).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment daily IGRT is beneficial to all patients and can be performed efficiently. Pelvic variables were the strongest performer, with fiducial markers providing the most consistent and rapid match times. Chest variables were the worst performer specifically regarding random setup error and match times indicating future work required on chest stabilization.

Quality Improvement Investigation for Head and Neck Stabilization in Radiotherapy Using Setup Tattoos

PURPOSE

Highly complex planning techniques and delivery methods in the treatment of head and neck cancer require an advanced level of accuracy and reproducibility.

AIM

To determine if the addition of tattoos placed on the chest inferior to the CIVCO Vac-Lok stabilization system improves accuracy and reproducibility of patient set up.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with head and neck cancer were studied. Nine underwent radical treatment using the routine CIVCO stabilization system. The second group of nine used the same stabilization device but were positioned daily with the use of tattoos. Daily orthogonal kilovoltage setup images were used to calculate setup errors. Displacements in the left/right (Lt/Rt), superior/inferior (Sup/Inf), and anterior/posterior (Ant/Post) directions were determined as well as pitch and yaw rotational errors.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty-three image pairs were analysed. Clinically significant differences were found in yaw error, Lt/Rt displacement, and Sup/Inf displacement in the tattooed patients. The median (interquartile range) absolute yaw error was larger for patients without tattoos: 1.4° (1.4° to 2.1°) compared to 0.8° (0.8° to 1.4°) for patients with tattoos. The percentage of both Sup/Inf and Lt/Rt errors >3 mm was also greater for patients without tattoos: 23.7% of Sup/Inf errors were >3 mm compared with 17.3% for patients with tattoos, and 22.3% of Lt/Rt errors were >3 mm compared with 10.0% for patients with tattoos.

CONCLUSION

The addition of chest tattoos resulted in clinically relevant improvements in Lt/Rt and Sup/Inf translational displacements and variations in yaw for head and neck cancer patients.

Field Placement Correction Using MV IGRT. Is Postintervention Imaging Necessary?

PURPOSE

Online image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is used for all radical pelvic patients at Radiation Oncology Queensland. One linear accelerator is equipped with megavoltage electronic portal imaging. Daily imaging on this linear accelerator introduces a dose burden that must be accounted for in the planning process. This dose burden is further complicated by postintervention images taken to verify field placement corrections. Analysis of setup errors and number and management of isocenter shifts was also used to identify an appropriate dose burden to be applied.

METHOD

The IGRT data of 50 radical pelvic patients were retrospectively collected and analysed, and the number of isocenter moves made was assessed. Statistical analysis of systematic and random errors, both preintervention and postintervention, was undertaken. Inclusive in this analysis was the number of times postintervention images revealed an error in manually entered isocenter shifts. The imaging dose used was also investigated.

RESULTS

Online IGRT was able to reduce the setup error to <2 mm for all orthogonal planes. Postintervention imaging was shown to be necessary to assess field placement, because manual errors in field placement were found to occur. The generic dose burden in use was found to be excessive.

CONCLUSION

Daily IGRT is now considered an essential tool in modern radiation therapy. Postintervention imaging is required to ensure correct isocenter placement on linear accelerators where the process is manual. The current estimate of the worst-case scenario dose burden may be reduced to either incorporate a "population" dose or a more realistic absolute maximum dose. Any removal of a quality assurance process such as this requires evidence, consultation, and careful consideration.

Radiation therapist perspectives on cone-beam computed tomography practices and response to information

Introduction

With recent technological advances in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), more image-related clinical information is being collected, at more frequent intervals throughout the treatment course. As radiation therapy (RT) programmes further develop IGRT technology, the aim of this study is to assess whether the distribution and communication of professional responsibilities is evolving to ensure appropriate use of the technology.

Methods

Radiation therapists practicing at any of the 14 Ontario RT centres were sent an electronic survey (n = 400). Closed-ended quantitative items addressed perceptions regarding policies, comfort, and professional responsibility in addressing CBCT concerns. Focus was on gynaecological, lung, head and neck (H&N) disease sites. Options for qualitative comments and explanations were included where appropriate.

Results

Seventy-nine surveys were submitted. Respondents from 12/14 (85·7%) centres used CBCT for at least one of three disease sites, most commonly on a daily basis. Five of these centres (41·7%) did not require radiation oncologist CBCT review, with others requiring it Day 1 or weekly. Potential CBCT observations of concern were grouped as set-up issues, tumour changes, organ-at-risk (OAR) changes, contour changes and ancillary findings (especially lung and airway changes). Respondents believed they consulted another professional about a CBCT in 20·2% of H&N patients, 19·6% of lung patients and 9·7% of gynaecological patients. The level of comfort in doing so varied from 77·0% for H&N to 89·5% for lung. Respondents were most likely to believe themselves responsible for changes in OARs (92·2% believing themselves responsible), and least likely for ancillary findings (62·7%).

Conclusions

Through preliminary insight from Ontario therapists, a degree of inconsistency is apparent between perceptions, practices and assigned roles in the management of CBCT information. Clear definition of the scope and nature of therapists’ responsibility for interpreting and addressing changes on CBCT images should be developed within each centre.