ExacTrac X-ray 6 degree-of-freedom image-guidance for intracranial non-invasive stereotactic radiotherapy: comparison with kilo-voltage cone-beam CT

Controversies in neuro-oncology: Focal proton versus photon radiation therapy for adult brain tumors

Radiation therapy (RT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of malignant and benign brain tumors. Current state-of-the-art photon- and proton-based RT combines more conformal dose distribution of target volumes and accurate dose delivery while limiting the adverse radiation effects. PubMed was systematically searched from from 2000 to October 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes related to treatment of central nervous system (CNS)/skull base tumors with PT in adults. Several studies have demonstrated that proton therapy (PT) provides a reduced dose to healthy brain parenchyma compared with photon-based (xRT) radiation techniques. However, whether dosimetric advantages translate into superior clinical outcomes for different adult brain tumors remains an open question. This review aims at critically reviewing the recent studies on PT in adult patients with brain tumors, including glioma, meningiomas, and chordomas, to explore its potential benefits compared with xRT.

Can Optical Surface Imaging Replace Non-coplanar Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Non-coplanar Set-up Verification in Single-isocentre Non-coplanar Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Single and Multiple Brain Metastases?

AIMS

To conduct a direct comparison regarding the non-coplanar positioning accuracy between the optical surface imaging system Catalyst HDTM and non-coplanar cone-beam computed tomography (NC-CBCT) in intracranial single-isocentre non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with between one and five brain metastases who underwent single-isocentre non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) SRS or HSRT were enrolled in this study. For each non-zero couch angle, both Catalyst HDTM and NC-CBCT were used for set-up verification prior to beam delivery. The set-up error reported by Catalyst HDTM was compared with the set-up error derived from NC-CBCT, which was defined as the gold standard. Additionally, the dose delivery accuracy of each non-coplanar field after using Catalyst HDTM and NC-CBCT for set-up correction was measured with SRS MapCHECKTM.

RESULTS

The median set-up error differences (absolute values) between the two positioning methods were 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, 0.50 mm, 0.15°, 0.10° and 0.10° in the vertical, longitudinal, lateral, yaw, pitch and roll directions, respectively. The largest absolute set-up error differences regarding translation and rotation were 1.5 mm and 1.1°, which occurred in the longitudinal and yaw directions, respectively. Only 35.71% of the pairs of measurements were within the tolerance of 0.5 mm and 0.5° simultaneously. In addition, the non-coplanar field with NC-CBCT correction yielded a higher gamma passing rate than that with Catalyst HDTM correction (P < 0.05), especially for evaluation criteria of 1%/1 mm with a median increase of 12.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Catalyst HDTM may not replace NC-CBCT for non-coplanar set-up corrections in single-isocentre NC-VMAT SRS and HSRT for single and multiple brain metastases. The potential role of Catalyst HDTM in intracranial SRS/HSRT needs to be further studied in the future.

Initial end-to-end testing of the ExacTrac dynamic deep inspiration breath hold workflow using a breath hold breast phantom

ExacTrac Dynamic (ETD) provides a Deep Inspiration Breath Hold (DIBH) workflow for breast patients. Stereoscopic x-ray imaging combined with optical and thermal mapping allows localisation against simulation imaging, alongside surface guided breath hold monitoring. This work aimed to determine appropriate imaging parameters, the optimal Hounsfield Unit (HU) threshold for patient contour generation and workflow evaluation via end-to-end (E2E) positioning using a custom breast DIBH phantom. After localisation via existing Image Guidance (IG), stereoscopic imaging was performed with a range of parameters to determine best agreement. Similarly, residual errors in prepositioning were minimised using a range of HU threshold contours. E2E positioning was completed for clinical workflows allowing residual isocentre position error measurement and existing IG comparison. Parameters of 60 kV and 25mAs were determined appropriate for patient imaging and HU thresholds between -600 HU and -200 HU enabled adequate prepositioning. The average and standard deviation in residual isocentre position error was 1.0 ± 0.9 mm, 0.4 ± 1.0 mm and 0.1 ± 0.5 mm in the lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions, respectively. Errors measured using existing IG were -0.6 ± 1.1 mm, 0.5 ± 0.7 mm and 0.2 ± 0.4 mm in the lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions, and 0.0 ± 1.0o, 0.5 ± 1.7o and -0.8 ± 1.8o for pitch roll and yaw. The use of bone weighted matching increased residual error, while simulated reduction of DIBH volume maintained isocentre positioning accuracy despite anatomical changes. This initial testing indicated suitability for clinical implementation during DIBH breast treatments.

Geometric accuracy in patient positioning for stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors

Background/Purpose

This study determines and compares the geometric setup errors between stereoscopic x-ray and kilo-voltage cone beam CT (CBCT) in phantom tests on a linear accelerator (linac) for image-guided (IG) stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors. Additionally, dose-volume metrics in the target volumes of the setup errors of CBCT were evaluated.

Materials/Methods

A Winston-Lutz- and an anthropomorphic phantom were used. The mean deviation and root mean square error (RMSE) of CBCT and stereoscopic x-ray were compared. Dose-volume metrics of the planning target volume (PTV) and gross target volume (GTV) for CBCT were calculated.

Results

The RMSEs in the tests with the Winston-Lutz-Phantom were 0.3 mm, 1.1 mm and 0.3 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray in the translational dimensions (right-left, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior). The RMSEs in the tests with the anthropomorphic phantom were 0.3 mm, 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray. The effects on dose-volume metrics of the setup errors of CBCT on the GTV were within 1 % for all considered dose values. The effects on the PTV were within 5 % for all considered dose values.

Conclusion

Both IG systems provide high accuracy patient positioning within a submillimeter range. The phantom tests exposed a slightly higher accuracy of stereoscopic x-ray than CBCT. The comparison with other studies with a similar purpose emphasizes the importance of individual IG installation quality assurance.

ExacTrac X-Ray 6D Imaging During Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Spinal and Nonspinal Metastases

The objective was to investigate the possibility of using ExacTrac X-ray (ETX) for 6D image guidance in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of bone metastasis and to propose a patient management protocol. The analyses were first obtained from measurements on a pelvic phantom and on 19 patients treated for bone metastasis. The phantom study consisted of applying known offsets and evaluating the ETX level of accuracy, where results were compared with kV-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT). Two groups of patients, 10 spinal and 9 nonspinal SBRT cases, were analyzed to evaluate ETX imaging for different bone localisations. A comparison was made between kV-CBCT and ETX prior to the treatment fractions. During treatments, two other kV-CBCT/ETX image pairs were also acquired and a total of 224 shifts were compared. A second study, using the ETX monitoring module, analyzed the intrafraction motion of 8 other patients. In the phantom study, the root mean square (RMS) of the translational and rotational discrepancies between ETX and kV-CBCT were < 0.6 mm and < 0.4°, respectively. For both groups of patients, the RMS of the discrepancies observed between the two imaging systems were greater than the phantom experiment while still remaining < 1 mm and < 0.7°. In the nonspinal group, three patients (2 scapulas and 1 humerus) did not have consistent shift values with ETX due to a lack of anatomical information. When ETX monitoring was used during irradiation, the setup errors measured were on average less than 1 mm/1°. The results obtained validated the use of ETX for 6D image guidance during bone SBRT. Real-time tracking of the target position improves the accuracy of the irradiation. This strategy allowed for faster correction of out-of-tolerance positioning errors. The registration of bone lesions with poor anatomical information is a limitation of this 2D-kV imaging system.

ExacTrac Dynamic workflow evaluation: Combined surface optical/thermal imaging and X-ray positioning

In modern radiotherapy (RT), especially for stereotactic radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery treatments, image guidance is essential. Recently, the ExacTrac Dynamic (EXTD) system, a new combined surface-guided RT and image-guided RT (IGRT) system for patient positioning, monitoring, and tumor targeting, was introduced in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to provide more information about the geometric accuracy of EXTD and its workflow in a clinical environment. The surface optical/thermal- and the stereoscopic X-ray imaging positioning systems of EXTD was evaluated and compared to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, the congruence with the radiation isocenter was tested. A Winston Lutz test was executed several times over 1 year, and repeated end-to-end positioning tests were performed. The magnitude of the displacements between all systems, CBCT, stereoscopic X-ray, optical-surface imaging, and MV portal imaging was within the submillimeter range, suggesting that the image guidance provided by EXTD is accurate at any couch angle. Additionally, results from the evaluation of 14 patients with intracranial tumors treated with open-face masks are reported, and limited differences with a maximum of 0.02 mm between optical/thermal- and stereoscopic X-ray imaging were found. As the optical/thermal positioning system showed a comparable accuracy to other IGRT systems, and due to its constant monitoring capability, it can be an efficient tool for detecting intra-fractional motion and for real-time tracking of the surface position during RT.

Single-isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: Impact of patient misalignments on target coverage in non-coplanar treatments

Frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patients with multiple brain metastases is a treatment at high geometrical complexity. The goal of this study is to analyze the dosimetric impact of non-coplanar image guidance with stereoscopic X-ray imaging. Such an analysis is meant to provide insights on the adequacy of safety margins, and to evaluate the benefit of imaging at non-coplanar configurations. The ExacTrac® (ET) system (Brainlab AG, Munich, Germany) was used for stereoscopic X-ray imaging in frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar SRS for multiple brain metastases. Sub-millimeter precision was found for the ET-based pre-treatment setup, whereas a degradation was noted for non-coplanar treatment angles. Misalignments without intra-fractional positioning corrections were reconstructed in 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) to resemble the situation without non-coplanar image guidance. Dose recalculation in 20 SRS patients with applied positioning corrections did not reveal any significant differences in D_98% for 75 planning target volumes (PTVs) and gross tumor volumes (GTVs). For recalculation without applied positioning corrections, significant differences (p<0.05) were reported in D_98% for both PTVs and GTVs, with stronger effects for small PTV volumes. A worst-case analysis at increasing translational and rotational misalignment revealed that dosimetric changes are a complex function of the combination thereof. This study highlighted the important role of positioning correction with ET at non-coplanar configurations in frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases. Uncorrected patient misalignments at non-coplanar couch angles were linked to a significant loss of PTV coverage, with effects varying according to the combination of single DoF and PTV geometrical properties.

Shift detection discrepancy between ExacTrac Dynamic system and cone‐beam computed tomography

Accurate detection of patient shift is essential during radiation therapy such that optimal dose is delivered to the tumor while minimizing radiation to surrounding normal tissues. The shift detectability of a newly developed optical surface and thermal tracking system, which was known as ExacTrac Dynamic (EXTD), was evaluated by comparing its performance with the image guidance under cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT). Anthropomorphic cranial and pelvis phantoms with internal bone‐like structures and external heat pad were utilized to study the shift detection discrepancy between EXTD system and CBCT. Random displacements within the range of ± 2 cm for translations and ± 2 degrees for rotations were intentionally applied to the phantom. Positional shifts detected by optical surface and thermal tracking (EXTD_Thml), stereoscopic X‐ray (EXTD_Xray), and CBCT were compared in 6 degrees of freedom. The translational difference between EXTD_Thml and CBCT was 0.57 ± 0.41 mm and 0.66 ± 0.40 mm for cranial and pelvis phantom, respectively, while it was 0.60 ± 0.43 mm and 0.76 ± 0.49 mm between EXTD_Xray and CBCT, respectively. For rotational movement, the difference between EXTD_Thml and CBCT was 0.19 ± 0.16° and 0.19 ± 0.22° for cranial and pelvis phantom, respectively, while it was 0.13 ± 0.18° and 0.65 ± 0.46° between EXTD_Xray and CBCT, respectively. This study demonstrated that the EXTD system with thermal mapping ability could offer comparable accuracy for shift detection with CBCT on both cranial and pelvis phantoms.

Simultaneous radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: technical overview of the UCLA experience

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To communicate our institutional experience with single isocenter radiosurgery treatments for multiple brain metastases, including challenges with determining planning target volume (PTV) margins and resulting consequences, image-guidance translational and rotational tolerances, intra-fraction patient motion, and prescription considerations with larger PTV margins.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Eight patient treatments with 51 targets were planned with various margins using Elements Multiple Brain Mets SRS treatment planning software (Brainlab, Munich, Germany). Forty-eight plans with 0 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm margins were created, including plans with variable margins, where targets more than 6 cm away from the isocenter were planned with larger margins. The dosimetric impact of the margins were analyzed with V5Gy, V8Gy, V10Gy, V12Gy values. Additionally, 12 patient motion data were analyzed to determine both the impact of the repositioning threshold and the distributions of the patient translational and rotational movements.

RESULTS

The V5Gy, V8Gy, V10Gy, V12Gy volumes approximately doubled when margins change from 0 to 1 mm and tripled when change from 0 to 2 mm. With variable margins, the aggregated results are similar to results from plans using the lower of two margins, since only 12.2% of the targets were more than 6 cm away from the isocenter. With 0.5 mm re-positioning threshold, 57.4% of the time the patients are repositioned. Reducing the threshold to 0.25 mm results in 91.7% repositioning rate, due to limitations of the fusion algorithm and actual patient motion. The 90th percentile of translational movements in all directions is 0.7 mm, while the 90th percentile of rotational movements in all directions is 0.6 degrees. Median translations and rotations are 0.2 mm and 0.2 degrees, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data presented, we have switched our modus operandi from 2 to 1 mm PTV margins, with an eventual goal of using 0.5 and 1.0 mm variable margins when an automated margin assignment method becomes available. The 0.5 mm and 0.5 degrees repositioning thresholds are clinically appropriate with small residual patient movements.

Radiobiological evaluation considering setup error on single-isocenter irradiation in stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

We calculated the dosimetric indices and estimated the tumor control probability (TCP) considering six degree‐of‐freedom (6DoF) patient setup errors in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using a single‐isocenter technique.

Methods

We used simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with diameters of 1.0 cm (GTV 1), 2.0 cm (GTV 2), and 3.0 cm (GTV 3), and the distance (d) between the target center and isocenter was set to 0, 5, and 10 cm. We created the dose distribution by convolving the blur component to uniform dose distribution. The prescription dose was 20 Gy and the dose distribution was adjusted so that D95 (%) of each GTV was covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The GTV was simultaneously rotated within 0°–1.0° (δR) around the x‐, y‐, and z‐axes and then translated within 0–1.0 mm (δT) in the x‐, y‐, and z‐axis directions. D95, conformity index (CI), and conformation number (CN) were evaluated by varying the distance from the isocenter. The TCP was estimated by translating the calculated dose distribution into a biological response. In addition, we derived the x‐y‐z coordinates with the smallest TCP reduction rate that minimize the sum of squares of the residuals as the optimal isocenter coordinates using the relationship between 6DoF setup error, distance from isocenter, and GTV size.

Results

D95, CI, and CN were decreased with increasing isocenter distance, decreasing GTV size, and increasing setup error. TCP of GTVs without 6DoF setup error was estimated to be 77.0%. TCP were 25.8% (GTV 1), 35.0% (GTV 2), and 53.0% (GTV 3) with (d, δT_,δR) = (10 cm, 1.0 mm, 1.0°). The TCP was 52.3% (GTV 1), 54.9% (GTV 2), and 66.1% (GTV 3) with (d, δT_,δR) = (10 cm, 1.0 mm, 1.0°) at the optimal isocenter position.

Conclusion

The TCP in SRS for multiple brain metastases with a single‐isocenter technique may decrease with increasing isocenter distance and decreasing GTV size when the 6DoF setup errors are exceeded (1.0 mm, 1.0°). Additionally, it might be possible to better maintain TCP for GTVs with 6DoF setup errors by using the optimal isocenter position.

Distance to isocenter is not associated with an increased risk for local failure in LINAC-based single-isocenter SRS or SRT for multiple brain metastases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the distance between treatment isocenter and brain metastases on local failure in patients treated with a frameless linear-accelerator-based single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) SRS/SRT for multiple brain metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients treated with SRT for brain metastases (BM) between April 2014 and May 2019 were included in this retrospective study. BM treated with a single-isocenter multiple-target (SIMT) SRT were evaluated for local recurrence-free intervals in dependency to their distance to the treatment isocenter. A Cox-regression model was used to investigate different predictor variables for local failure. Results were compared to patients treated with a single-isocenter-single-target (SIST) approach.

RESULTS

In total 315 patients with a cumulative number of 1087 BM were analyzed in this study of which 140 patients and 708 BM were treated with SIMT SRS/SRT. Median follow-up after treatment was 13.9 months for SIMT approach and 11.9 months for SIST approach. One-year freedom from local recurrence was 87% and 94% in the SIST and SIMT group, respectively. Median distance to isocenter (DTI) was 4.7 cm (range 0.2-10.5) in the SIMT group. Local recurrence-free interval was not associated with the distance to the isocenter in univariable or multivariable Cox-regression analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed only volume as an independent significant predictor for local failure (p-value <0.05).

CONCLUSION

SRS/SRT using single-isocenter VMAT for multiple targets achieved high local metastases control rates irrespective of distance to the isocenter, supporting efficacy of single-isocenter stereotactic radiation therapy for multiple brain metastases.

Consistency of small-field dosimetry, on and off axis, in beam-matched linacs used for stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be delivered with a standard linear accelerator (linac). At institutions having more than one linac, beam matching is common practice. In the literature, there are indications that machine central axis (CAX) matching for broad fields does not guarantee matching of small fields with side ≤2 cm. There is no indication on how matching for broad fields on axis translates to matching small fields off axis. These are of interest to multitarget single-isocenter (MTSI) SRS planning and the present work addresses that gap in the literature.

METHODS

We used 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beams from four Elekta VersaHD® linacs equipped with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The linacs were strictly matched for broad fields on CAX. We compared output factors (OPFs) and effective field size, measured concurrently using a novel 2D solid-state dosimeter "Duo" with a spatial resolution of 0.2 mm, in square and rectangular static fields with sides from 0.5 to 2 cm, either on axis or away from it by 5 to 15 cm.

RESULTS

Among the four linacs, OPF for fields ≥1 × 1 cm2 ranged 1.3% on CAX, whereas off axis a maximum range of 1.9% was observed at 15 cm. A larger variability in OPF was noted for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 field, with a range of 5.9% on CAX, which improved to a maximum of 2.3% moving off axis. Two linacs showed greater consistency with a range of 1.4% on CAX and 2.2% at 15 cm off axis. Between linacs, the effective field size varied by <0.04 cm in most cases, both on and off axis. Tighter matching was observed for linacs with a similar focal spot position.

CONCLUSIONS

Verification of small-field consistency for matched linacs used for SRS is an important task for dosimetric validation. A significant benefit of concurrent measurement of field size and OPF allowed for a comprehensive assessment using a novel diode array. Our study showed the four linacs, strictly matched for broad fields on CAX, were still matched down to a field size of 1 x 1 cm2 on and off axis.

Comprehensive characterization of ExacTrac stereoscopic image guidance system using Monte Carlo and Spektr simulations

The purpose of this work is to develop accurate computational methods to comprehensively characterize and model the clinical ExacTrac imaging system, which is used as an image guidance system for stereotactic treatment applications. The Spektr toolkit was utilized to simulate the spectral and imaging characterization of the system. Since Spektr only simulates the primary beam (ignoring scatter), a full model of ExacTrac was also developed in Monte Carlo (MC) to characterize the imaging system. To ensure proper performance of both simulation models, Spektr and MC data were compared to the measured spectral and half value layers (HVLs) values. To validate the simulation results, x-ray spectra of the ExacTrac system were measured for various tube potentials using a CdTe spectrometer with multiple added narrow collimators. The raw spectra were calibrated using a ⁵⁷Co source and corrected for the escape peaks and detector efficiency. HVLs in mm of Al for various energies were measured using a calibrated RaySafe detector. Spektr and MC HVLs were calculated and compared to the measured values. The patient surface dose was calculated for different clinical imaging protocols from the measured air kerma and HVL values following the TG-61 methodology. The x-ray focal spot was measured by slanted edge technique using gafchromic films. ExacTrac imaging system beam profiles were simulated for various energies by MC simulation and the results were benchmarked by experimentally acquired beam profiles using gafchromic films. The effect of 6D IGRT treatment couch on beam hardening, dynamic range of the flat panel detector and scatter effect were determined using both Spektr simulation and experimental measurements. The measured and simulated spectra (of both MC and Spektr) for various kVps were compared and agreed within acceptable error. As another validation, the measured HVLs agreed with the Spektr and MC simulated HVLs on average within 1.0% for all kVps. The maximum and minimum patient surface doses were found to be 1.06 mGy for shoulder (high) and 0.051 mGy for cranial (low) imaging protocols, respectively. The MC simulated beam profiles were well matched with experimental results and replicated the penumbral slopes, the heel effect, and out-of-field regions. Dynamic range of detector (in terms of air kerma at detector surface) was found to be in the range of [6.1 × 10^-6, 5.3 × 10^-3] mGy. Accurate MC and Spektr models of the ExacTrac image guidance system were successfully developed and benchmarked via experimental validation. While patient surface dose for available imaging protocols were reported in this study, the established MC model may be used to obtain 3D imaging dose distribution for real patient geometries.

A phantom study to evaluate three different registration platform of 3D/3D, 2D/3D, and 3D surface match with 6D alignment for precise image-guided radiotherapy

Purpose

To evaluate two three‐dimensional (3D)/3D registration platforms, one two‐dimensional (2D)/3D registration method, and one 3D surface registration method (3DS). These three technologies are available to perform six‐dimensional (6D) registrations for image‐guided radiotherapy treatment.

Methods

Fiducial markers were asymmetrically placed on the surfaces of an anthropomorphic head phantom (n = 13) and a body phantom (n = 8), respectively. The point match (PM) solution to the six‐dimensional (6D) transformation between the two image sets [planning computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT (CBCT)] was determined through least‐square fitting of the fiducial positions using singular value decomposition (SVD). The transformation result from SVD was verified and was used as the gold standard to evaluate the 6D accuracy of 3D/3D registration in Varian’s platform (3D3DV), 3D/3D and 2D/3D registration in the BrainLab ExacTrac system (3D3DE and 2D3D), as well as 3DS in the AlignRT system. Image registration accuracy from each method was quantitatively evaluated by root mean square of target registration error (rmsTRE) on fiducial markers and by isocenter registration error (IRE). The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was utilized to compare the difference of each registration method with PM. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

rmsTRE was in the range of 0.4 mm/0.7 mm (cranial/body), 0.5 mm/1 mm, 1.0 mm/1.5 mm, and 1.0 mm/1.2 mm for PM, 3D3D, 2D3D, and 3DS, respectively. Comparing to PM, the mean errors of IRE were 0.3 mm/1 mm for 3D3D, 0.5 mm/1.4 mm for 2D3D, and 1.6 mm/1.35 mm for 3DS for the cranial and body phantoms respectively. Both of 3D3D and 2D3D methods differed significantly in the roll direction as compared to the PM method for the cranial phantom. The 3DS method was significantly different from the PM method in all three translation dimensions for both the cranial (P = 0.003–P = 0.03) and body (P < 0.001–P = 0.008) phantoms.

Conclusion

3D3D using CBCT had the best image registration accuracy among all the tested methods. 2D3D method was slightly inferior to the 3D3D method but was still acceptable as a treatment position verification device. 3DS is comparable to 2D3D technique and could be a substitute for X‐ray or CBCT for pretreatment verification for treatment of anatomical sites that are rigid.

Effect of setup error in the single-isocenter technique on stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases

In conventional stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), treatment of multiple brain metastases using multiple isocenters is time‐consuming resulting in long dose delivery times for patients. A single‐isocenter technique has been developed which enables the simultaneous irradiation of multiple targets at one isocenter. This technique requires accurate positioning of the patient to ensure optimal dose coverage. We evaluated the effect of six degrees of freedom (6DoF) setup errors in patient setups on SRS dose distributions for multiple brain metastases using a single‐isocenter technique. We used simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with diameters ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 cm. The distance from the isocenter to the target's center was varied from 0 to 15 cm. We created dose distributions so that each target was entirely covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The target's position vectors were rotated from 0°–2.0° and translated from 0–1.0 mm with respect to the three axes in space. The reduction in dose coverage for the targets for each setup error was calculated and compared with zero setup error. The calculated margins for the GTV necessary to satisfy the tolerance values for loss of GTV coverage of 3% to 10% were defined as coverage‐based margins. In addition, the maximum isocenter to target distance for different 6DoF setup errors was calculated to satisfy the tolerance values. The dose coverage reduction and coverage‐based margins increased as the target diameter decreased, and the distance and 6DoF setup error increased. An increase in setup error when a single‐isocenter technique is used may increase the risk of missing the tumor; this risk increases with increasing distance from the isocenter and decreasing tumor size.

A Relationship Between Cervical Vertebrae Twisting and Cranial Angle in Head and Neck Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Because current image-guided radiotherapy systems can only correct six axes, it is impossible to correct the twisting of cervical vertebrae. The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between cervical vertebrae twisting and cranial angle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Twisting of cervical vertebrae was analysed using planning computed tomography (CT) and megavoltage CT images for image-guided radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Although the cranial angle during planning CT was not strongly correlated with twisting (correlation coefficient <0.7), when the patients were divided into two groups by cranial angle, the twisting of the small-angle group was significantly reduced. Specifically, cranial angles of <25° significantly and efficiently reduced the twisting of the upper cervical vertebra compared with those of the other groups.

CONCLUSION

Twisting of the upper cervical vertebrae is reduced by using a cranial angle of <25° during planning CT.

Independent 6D quality assurance of stereotactic radiotherapy repositioning on linacs

PURPOSE

A high level of accuracy while positioning the patient is mandatory for frameless stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), as large doses in multiple fractions can be delivered near organs at risk. The objective of this study is to propose an end-to-end quality assurance method to verify that submillimetre alignment can be achieved with stereotactic conventional linacs.

METHODS

We used a TrueBeam® linear accelerator equipped with a 6DOF robotic couch. The "ISO Cube" phantom was used with a homemade stand designed to generate known translational and rotational offsets. A reference CT scan was performed with straight alignment of the phantom. The procedure introduced 1.6° angular offset for the couch pitch and roll, at various gantry angles. The couch base was also moved between 0° and 270°. We compared the results with the daily machine performance check tests (MPC, Varian).

RESULTS

The mean isocentre size, MV and kV imager offsets were found to agree to within 0.1mm, 0.1mm and 0.3mm respectively, and were in close agreement between the methods. For a total four months data collection period, the mean deviation between requested and measured 6DOF couch shifts was 0.6mm and 0.2°. Errors on field size were smaller than 1mm for 97.7% of the 324 data points.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate that the linac equipped with a 6DOF robotic positioner and CBCT imaging satisfies requirements for SRT. Our methodology, based on a modified Winston-Lutz quality control, allowed us to quantitatively assess end-to-end accuracy of a linac in order to safely deliver SRT.

Impact of patient positioning uncertainty in noncoplanar intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

The aim of this study is to evaluate the patient positioning uncertainty in noncoplanar stereotactic radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) for intracranial lesions with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system. In all, 28 patients treated with SRS/SRT of 70 treatment plans at our institution were evaluated in this study. Two X‐ray images with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system were first acquired to correct (XC) and verify (XV) the patient position at a couch angle of 0º. Subsequently, the XC and XV images were also acquired at each planned couch angle for using noncoplanar beams to detect position errors caused by rotating a couch. The translational XC and XV shift values at each couch angle were calculated for each plan. The percentages of the translational XC shift values within 1.0 mm for each planned couch angle for using noncoplanar beams were 77.86%, 72.26%, and 98.47% for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. Those within 2.0 mm were 98.22%, 97.96%, and 99.75% for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. The maximum absolute values of the translational XC shifts among all planned couch angles for using noncoplanar beams were 2.69, 2.45, and 2.17 mm for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. The overall absolute values of the translational XV shifts were less than 1.0 mm for all directions except for one case in the longitudinal direction. The patient position errors were detected after couch rotation for using noncoplanar beams, and they exceeded a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 1.0–2.0 mm used commonly in SRS/SRT treatment. These errors need to be corrected at each planned couch angle, or the PTV margin should be enlarged.

Estimating PTV Margins in Head and Neck Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Through Target Site Analysis of Positioning and Intrafractional Accuracy

PURPOSE

Recurrent or previously irradiated head and neck cancers (HNC) are therapeutically challenging and may benefit from high-dose, highly accurate radiation techniques, such as stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Here, we compare set-up and positioning accuracy across HNC subsites to further optimize the treatment process and planning target volume (PTV) margin recommendations for head and neck SABR.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We prospectively collected data on 405 treatment fractions across 79 patients treated with SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated HNC. First, interfractional error was determined by comparing ExacTrac x-ray to the treatment plan. Patients were then shifted and residual error was measured with repeat x-ray. Next, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was compared with ExacTrac for positioning agreement, and final shifts were applied. Lastly, intrafractional error was measured with x-ray before each arc. Results were stratified by treatment site into skull base, neck/parotid, and mucosal.

RESULTS

Most patients (66.7%) were treated to 45 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 21-47.5 Gy in 3-5 fractions). The initial mean ± standard deviation interfractional errors were -0.2 ± 1.4 mm (anteroposterior), 0.2 ± 1.8 mm (craniocaudal), and -0.1 ± 1.7 mm (left-right). Interfractional 3-dimensional vector error was 2.48 ± 1.44, with skull base significantly lower than other sites (2.22 vs 2.77; P = .0016). All interfractional errors were corrected to within 1.3 mm and 1.8°. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac to within 3.6 mm and 3.4°. CBCT disagreements and intrafractional errors of >1 mm or >1° occurred at significantly lower rates in skull base sites (CBCT: 16.4% vs 50.0% neck, 52.0% mucosal, P < .0001; intrafractional: 22.0% vs 48.7% all others, P < .0001). Final PTVs were 1.5 mm (skull base), 2.0 mm (neck/parotid), and 1.8 mm (mucosal).

CONCLUSIONS

Head and neck SABR PTV margins should be optimized by target site. PTV margins of 1.5 to 2 mm may be sufficient in the skull base, whereas 2 to 2.5 mm may be necessary for neck and mucosal targets. When using ExacTrac, skull base sites show significantly fewer uncertainties throughout the treatment process, but neck/mucosal targets may require the addition of CBCT to account for positioning errors and internal organ motion.

The impact of the three degrees-of-freedom fiducial marker-based setup compared to soft tissue-based setup in hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Purpose

We evaluated the setup accuracy of a three‐degree‐of‐freedom fiducial marker (3DOF‐FM)‐based setup compared to a soft tissue (ST)‐based setup in hypofractionated intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed the setup accuracy for 17 consecutive prostate cancer patients with three implanted FMs who underwent hypofractionated IMRT. The 3DOF‐ST‐based setup using cone‐beam computed tomography (CT) was performed after a six DOF‐bony structure (BS)‐based setup using an ExacTrac x‐ray system. The 3DOF‐FM‐based matching using the ExacTrac x‐ray system was done during the BS‐ and ST‐based setups. We determined the mean absolute differences and the correlation between the FM‐ and ST‐based translational shifts relative to the BS‐based setup position. The rotational mean shifts detected by the ExacTrac x‐ray system were also evaluated.

Results

The mean differences in the anterior‐posterior (AP), superior‐inferior (SI), and left‐right (LR) dimensions were 0.69, 0.0, and 0.30 mm, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients for both shifts were 0.92 for AP, 0.91 for SI, and 0.68 for LR. The percentages of shift agreements within 2 mm were 85% for AP, 93% for SI, and 99% for LR. The absolute values of rotational shifts were 0.1° for AP, 0.3°, and 1.2° for LR.

Conclusions

The setup accuracy of the 3DOF‐FM‐based setup has the potential to be interchangeable with a ST‐based setup. Our data are likely to be useful in clinical practice along with the popularization of the hypofractionated IMRT in prostate cancer.

Clinical commissioning of a new patient positioning system, SyncTraX FX4, for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

Background & Aims

A new real‐time tracking radiotherapy (RTRT) system, the SyncTraX FX4 (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), consisting of four X‐ray tubes and four ceiling‐mounted flat panel detectors (FPDs) combined with a linear accelerator, was installed at Uonuma Kikan Hospital (Niigata, Japan) for the first time worldwide. In addition to RTRT, the SyncTraX FX4 system enables bony structure‐based patient verification. Here we provide the first report of this system's clinical commissioning for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT).

Materials & Methods

A total of five tests were performed for the commissioning: evaluations of (1) the system's image quality; (2) the imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence; and (3) the localization accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and SyncTraX FX4; (4) the measurement of air kerma; (5) an end‐to‐end test.

Results & Discussion

The tests revealed the following. (1) All image quality evaluation items satisfied each acceptable criterion in all FPDs. (2) The maximum offsets among the centers were ≤0.40 mm in all combinations of the FPD and X‐ray tubes (preset). (3) The isocenter localization discrepancies between CBCT and preset #3 in the SyncTraX FX4 system were 0.29 ± 0.084 mm for anterior‐posterior, −0.19 ± 0.13 mm for superior‐inferior, 0.076 ± 0.11 mm for left‐right, −0.11 ± 0.066° for rotation, −0.14 ± 0.064° for pitch, and 0.072±0.058° for roll direction. the Pearson's product‐moment correlation coefficient between the two systems was >0.98 in all directions. (4) The mean air kerma value for preset #3 was 0.11 ± 0.0002 mGy in predefined settings (80 kV, 200 mA, 50 msec). (5) For 16 combinations of gantry and couch angles, median offset value in all presets was 0.31 mm (range 0.14–0.57 mm).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate a competent performance of the SyncTraX FX4 system in terms of the localization accuracy for intracranial SRT.

High-precision quality assurance of robotic couches with six degrees of freedom

A robotic couch capable of six degrees of freedom (6-DoF) of motion was introduced for state-of-the-art radiation therapy. Patient treatment requires precise quality assurance (QA) of 6-DoF. Unfortunately, conventional methods do not provide the requisite accuracy and precision. Therefore, we developed a high-precision automated QA system using a visual tracking system (VTS). The VTS comprises four motion-sensing cameras, a cube with infrared reflective markers. To acquire data in treatment room coordinates, a transformation matrix from VTS coordinates to treatment room coordinates was determined. The mean error and standard deviation of linear and rotational motions, as well as couch sagging were analyzed from continuously acquired images in the moving couch. The accuracy of VTS was 0.024 mm deviation for the sinusoidal motion, and the accuracy of the transformation matrix was 0.02 mm. In a cross-comparison, the difference between Laser Tracker (FARO) measurements was 0.14 ± 0.12 mm for translation and 0.032 ± 0.026° on average for yaw rotation. The new system provides QA of yaw, pitch and roll motion as well as sagging of the couch and sub-millimeter/degree accuracy together with precision.

Comparison of the verification performance and radiation dose between ExacTrac x-ray system and On-Board Imager-A phantom study

Recently, On-Board Imager (OBI) and ExacTrac x-ray 6 degree-of-freedom system (ExacTrac) are increasingly used verification systems in local radiotherapy centers. This study aimed to compare the differences between these two systems in terms of verification accuracy, organ doses, and verification time for head-and-neck (H&N) and pelvic cases. Rando anthropomorphic phantoms of H&N and pelvic regions were positioned with known set-up deviations from the reference position in the linear accelerator. x-Ray verification images were then acquired using both systems. Verification accuracy was evaluated based on the residual positioning error (δD) after image registration. Thermoluminescence dose meters (TLD-100s) were placed in specific locations of the phantoms for the measurement of imaging doses at the organs of interest. Besides, the verification time was also recorded for comparison. Most average detection errors for both systems were within 1 mm. The detection error of ExacTrac was significantly larger than OBI in the H&N region in all directions (p < 0.05), but was significantly lower in the pelvis (p < 0.05). The mean imaging doses to all organs of interest from ExacTrac were significantly lower than OBI (p < 0.05). The mean verification time for ExacTrac was about 10 seconds, which was significantly shorter than the 100 seconds in OBI (p < 0.001). Both verification systems achieved satisfactory performance in the H&N and pelvic regions despite ExacTrac being better in terms of verification time and organ dose. The verification accuracy of Exactrac was better in pelvic region than the H&N region when compared with OBI.

Inherent uncertainty involved in six-dimensional shift determination in ExacTrac imaging system

Objective

This study was conducted for the assessment of in-built systematic and random errors in the ExacTrac imaging system due to the software of Brainlab, on that basis; recommending a new quality control programme for ExacTrac imaging system.

Methods

A program was developed to compare the image dataset of real time anthropomorphic pelvic phantom using ExacTrac with the reference image dataset from computed tomography. Images were acquired 20 times in a day, on single sitting for 20 conjugative days. On the basic of these translational and rotational shifts, systematic and random errors were calculated that had arisen due to multiple time image acquisition and image registration between acquired and reference image dataset of the phantom.

Results

Random errors were found as 0·006 cm in right-left (Rt-Lt) direction, 0·008 cm in superior-inferior (Sup-Inf) direction and 0·012 cm in anterior-posterior (Ant-Post) direction. On this basic, margins were calculated using Van Herk formula; it was found that there were 0·02 cm inherent shift in Rt-Lt direction, 0·03 cm in Sup-Inf direction and 0·03 cm in Ant-Post direction.

Conclusion

This study concluded that there was inherent error in ExacTrac system which can be quantified and used as a quality assurance tool for the ExacTrac system.

An evaluation of the BrainLAB 6D ExacTrac/Novalis Tx System for image-guided intracranial radiotherapy

Purpose

Stereotactic-fractionated radiotherapy and radiosurgery (RS) for benign and malignant intracranial lesions relies on a very high degree of accuracy in dose alignment due to the ablative dose delivered, and therefore requires a high-precision image guidance modality. The aim of this review is to investigate the localisation and verification accuracy performance of ExacTrac (ET) and Novalis Tx System.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of the database Science Direct was carried out using search terms ‘stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT)’ and ‘ET’. All articles before 2000 were excluded. Only articles that involved intracranial lesions, with the exception of one article, were included in the final review.

Results

Results from gold standard Hidden Target Tests and patient data show that patient position can be reproduced within 1·0 mm with the use of ET imaging. In addition, the 6 degrees of freedom algorithm function of ET allows for better translational accuracy as well optimal positioning when rotations are corrected for. Studies showed excellent correlation (p<0·01) between bony ET images and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) soft tissue registration, evidencing the safe reliance of bony anatomy for image guidance via ET. Shifts were found to be comparable between CBCT and ET.

Conclusion

There is the need for regular calibration to prevent systematic errors and potential geographic miss. However, due to ET’s additional benefits, including reduced concomitant dose and faster imaging time, ET is the superior image guidance modality for RS/SRT in the treatment of intracranial lesions.

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%.

Evaluations of the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6D ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography used with the imaging guidance system Novalis-Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery

The objective of this study was to evaluate the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6 degree-of-freedom (6D) ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) used with the imaging guidance system Novalis Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. We included 107 consecutive patients for whom white stereotactic head frame masks (R408; Clarity Medical Products, Newark, OH) were used to fix the head during intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery, between August 2012 and July 2016. The patients were immobilized in the same state for both the verification image using 6D ExacTrac and online 3D CBCT. In addition, after radiation treatment, registration between the computed tomography simulation images and the CBCT images was performed with offline 6D fusion in an offline review. The root-mean-square of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and CBCT was <1.01 mm for online matching and <1.10 mm for offline matching. Furthermore, the root-mean-square of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and the CBCT were <0.82° for online matching and <0.95° for offline matching. It was concluded that while the discrepancies in residual setup errors between the ExacTrac 6D X-ray and the CBCT were minor, they should not be ignored.

Comparison of Online 6 Degree-of-Freedom Image Registration of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Intracranial Radiosurgery

PURPOSE

The study was aimed to compare online 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography and BrainLab ExacTrac X-ray imaging systems for intracranial radiosurgery.

METHODS

Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom and was designed to evaluate isocenter location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters at various locations representing clinical treatment sites were selected in the phantom. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included 34 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken at each patient's treatment position. The 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations were performed on cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac were compared.

RESULTS

In the phantom study, the average residual error differences (absolute values) between cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac image registrations were 0.17 ± 0.11 mm, 0.36 ± 0.20 mm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.34° ± 0.08°, 0.13° ± 0.09°, and 0.12° ± 0.10°, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions were 0.20 ± 0.16 mm, 0.30 ± 0.18 mm, 0.21 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.40°± 0.16°, 0.17° ± 0.13°, and 0.20° ± 0.14°, respectively. Overall, the average residual error differences were <0.4 mm in the translational directions and <0.5° in the rotational directions. ExacTrac X-ray image registration is comparable to TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography image registration in intracranial treatments.

Stereoscopic X-ray imaging, cone beam CT, and couch positioning in stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors: preliminary results from a cross-modality pilot installation

Background

To assess the accuracy and precision of a fully integrated pilot installation of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and kV-CBCT for automatic couch positioning in stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors. Positioning errors as detected by stereoscopic X-ray imaging are compared to those by kV-CBCT (i.e. the accuracy of the new method is verified by the established method), and repeated X-ray images are compared (i.e. the precision of new method is determined intra-modally).

Methods

Preliminary results are reported from a study with 32 patients with intracranial tumors. Patients were treated with stereotactic radiotherapy guided by stereoscopic X-ray imaging and kV-CBCT. Patient positioning was automatically corrected by a robotic couch. Cross-modal discrepancies in position detection were measured (N = 42). Intra-modal improvements after correction and re-verification by stereoscopic X-ray imaging were measured (N = 70). The accuracy and precision of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and the accuracy and precision of CBCT were confirmed in phantom measurements (N = 12 shifts of a ball bearing phantom, N = 24 shifts of a head phantom).

Results

After correction based on stereoscopic X-ray imaging 95% of residual mean errors were below 0.4, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.7 mm (lateral, longitudinal, vertical, radial, respectively). Stereoscopic X-ray imaging and CBCT were in close agreement with an average discrepancy of 0.1, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.8 mm, respectively. 95% of discrepancies were below 0.8, 1.2, 1.0, and 1.4 mm, respectively. After correction and re-verification by stereoscopic X-ray imaging, the remaining intra-modal residual error was consistent with zero (p = 0.31, p = 0.48, p = 0.81 in lateral, longitudinal, and vertical direction; p-values from two-tailed t-test). The inherent technical accuracy and precision of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and the accuracy and precision of CBCT were found to be of the order of 0.1 mm in controlled phantom settings.

Conclusions

In a routine clinical setting, both stereoscopic X-ray imaging and CBCT were able to reduce positioning errors by an order of magnitude. The end-to-end precision of the system, measured from the discrepancy (mean) between ExacTrac and CBCT, in a clinical setting seems to be about 0.8 mm radially, including couch positioning. The precision (measured from repeatability of ExacTrac, intra-modal) was found to be about 0.7 mm radially in a clinical setting.

A Systematic Analysis of Errors in Target Localization and Treatment Delivery for Stereotactic Radiosurgery Using 2D/3D Image Registration

PURPOSE

To determine the localization uncertainties associated with 2-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration in comparison to 3-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration in 6 dimensions on a Varian Edge Linac under various imaging conditions.

METHODS

The systematic errors in 6 dimensions were assessed by comparing automatic 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (kV/MV vs computed tomography) with 3-dimensional/3-dimensional (cone beam computed tomography vs computed tomography) image registrations under various conditions encountered in clinical applications. The 2-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration uncertainties for 88 patients with different treatment sites including intracranial and extracranial were evaluated by statistically analyzing 2-dimensional/3-dimensional pretreatment verification shifts of 192 fractions in stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The systematic errors of 2-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration using kV-kV, MV-kV, and MV-MV image pairs were within 0.3 mm and 0.3° for the translational and rotational directions within a 95% confidence interval. No significant difference ( P > .05) in target localization was observed with various computed tomography slice thicknesses (0.8, 1, 2, and 3 mm). Two-dimensional/3-dimensional registration had the best accuracy when pattern intensity and content filter were used. For intracranial sites, means ± standard deviations of translational errors were -0.20 ± 0.70 mm, 0.04 ± 0.50 mm, and 0.10 ± 0.40 mm for the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions, respectively. For extracranial sites, means ± standard deviations of translational errors were -0.04 ± 1.00 mm, 0.2 ± 1.0 mm, and 0.1 ± 1.0 mm for the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions, respectively. Two-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration for intracranial and extracranial sites had comparable systematic errors that were approximately 0.2 mm in the translational direction and 0.08° in the rotational direction.

CONCLUSION

The standard 2-dimensional/3-dimensional image registration tool available on the Varian Edge radiosurgery device, a state-of-the-art system, is helpful for robust and accurate target positioning for image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery.

Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery

The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n= 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17 ± 0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27± 0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85 ± 0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77 ± 0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35 ± 5.61 cc vs. 10.52 ± 6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046 ± 374 MU vs. 4651 ± 736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24 ± 0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8 ± 0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71 ± 0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27 ± 4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC < RAT< RAC < DCA. For a single lesion close to OAR, RAT achieved high degrees of homogeneity (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.53 ± 0.2 for DCA) and conformity (0.72± 0.06vs. 0.56 ± 0.13 for DCA) while sparing organs at risk (Dmax = 12.36 ± 1.05Gyvs. 14.12 ± 0.59 Gy for DCA, and Dmean = 3.96 ± 3.57Gyvs. 4.72 ± 3.28Gy for DCA). On the other hand, MU numbers were lower with DCA (2254 ± 190 MUvs. 3438 ± 457 MU for RANC) even if overall time was inferior with RAC. For a single lesion, DCA provide better plan considering low doses to healthy brain even if quality indexes are better for the others techniques. For multiple lesions, RANC seems to be the best compromise, due to the ability to deliver a good conformity and homogeneity plan while sparing healthy brain tissue. For a single lesion close to organs at risk, RAT is the most appropriate technique.

Dosimetric effects of positioning shifts using 6D-frameless stereotactic Brainlab system in hypofractionated intracranial radiotherapy

Dosimetric consequences of positional shifts were studied using frameless Brainlab ExacTrac X‐ray system for hypofractionated (3 or 5 fractions) intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). SRT treatments of 17 patients with metastatic intracranial tumors using the stereotactic system were retrospectively investigated. The treatments were simulated in a treatment planning system by modifying planning parameters with a matrix conversion technique based on positional shifts for initial infrared (IR)‐based setup (XC: X‐ray correction) and post‐correction (XV: X‐ray verification). The simulation was implemented with (a) 3D translational shifts only and (b) 6D translational and rotational shifts for dosimetric effects of angular correction. Mean translations and rotations (± 1 SD) of 77 fractions based on the initial IR setup (XC) were 0.51±0.86 mm (lateral), 0.30±1.55 mm (longitudinal), and −1.63±1.00 mm (vertical); 0.53±0.56 mm (pitch), 0.42±0.60 mm (roll), and 0.44±0.90 mm (yaw), respectively. These were −0.07±0.24 mm, −0.07±0.25 mm, 0.06±0.21 mm, 0.04±0.23 mm, 0.00±0.30 mm, and 0.02±0.22 mm, respectively, for the postcorrection (XV). Substantial degradation of the treatment plans was observed in D95 of PTV (2.6%±3.3%; simulated treatment versus treatment planning), Dmin of PTV (13.4%±11.6%), and Dmin of CTV (2.8%±3.8%, with the maximum error of 10.0%) from XC, while dosimetrically negligible changes (< 0.1%) were detected for both CTV and PTV from XV simulation. 3D angular correction significantly improved CTV dose coverage when the total angular shifts (|pitch|+|roll|+|yaw|) were greater than 2°. With the 6D stereoscopic X‐ray verification imaging and frameless immobilization, submillimeter and subdegree accuracy is achieved with negligible dosimetric deviations. 3D angular correction is required when the angular deviation is substantial. A CTV‐to‐PTV safety margin of 2 mm is large enough to prevent deterioration of CTV coverage.

PACS number: 87.55.dk

Exposure Risks Among Children Undergoing Radiation Therapy: Considerations in the Era of Image Guided Radiation Therapy

Recent improvements in toxicity profiles of pediatric oncology patients are attributable, in part, to advances in the field of radiation oncology such as intensity modulated radiation (IMRT) and proton therapy (IMPT). While IMRT and IMPT deliver highly conformal dose to targeted volumes, they commonly demand the addition of 2- or 3-dimensional imaging for precise positioning--a technique known as image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). In this manuscript we address strategies to further minimize exposure risk in children by reducing effective IGRT dose. Portal X rays and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) are commonly used to verify patient position during IGRT and, because their relative radiation exposure is far less than the radiation absorbed from therapeutic treatment beams, their sometimes significant contribution to cumulative risk can be easily overlooked. Optimizing the conformality of IMRT/IMPT while simultaneously ignoring IGRT dose may result in organs at risk being exposed to a greater proportion of radiation from IGRT than from therapeutic beams. Over a treatment course, cumulative central-axis CBCT effective dose can approach or supersede the amount of radiation absorbed from a single treatment fraction, a theoretical increase of 3% to 5% in mutagenic risk. In select scenarios, this may result in the underprediction of acute and late toxicity risk (such as azoospermia, ovarian dysfunction, or increased lifetime mutagenic risk) in radiation-sensitive organs and patients. Although dependent on variables such as patient age, gender, weight, body habitus, anatomic location, and dose-toxicity thresholds, modifying IGRT use and acquisition parameters such as frequency, imaging modality, beam energy, current, voltage, rotational degree, collimation, field size, reconstruction algorithm, and documentation can reduce exposure, avoid unnecessary toxicity, and achieve doses as low as reasonably achievable, promoting a culture and practice of "gentle IGRT."

Accuracy of positioning and irradiation targeting for multiple targets in intracranial image-guided radiation therapy: a phantom study

This study investigated the accuracy of positioning and irradiation targeting for multiple off-isocenter targets in intracranial image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). A phantom with nine circular targets was created to evaluate both accuracies. First, the central point of the isocenter target was positioned with a combination of an ExacTrac x-ray (ETX) and a 6D couch. The positioning accuracy was determined from the deviations of coordinates of the central point in each target obtained from the kV-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) for IGRT and the planning CT. Similarly, the irradiation targeting accuracy was evaluated from the deviations of the coordinates between the central point of each target and the central point of each multi-leaf collimator (MLC) field for multiple targets. Secondly, the 6D couch was intentionally rotated together with both roll and pitch angles of 0.5° and 1° at the isocenter and similarly the deviations were evaluated. The positioning accuracy for all targets was less than 1 mm after 6D positioning corrections. The irradiation targeting accuracy was up to 1.3 mm in the anteroposterior (AP) direction for a target 87 mm away from isocenter. For the 6D couch rotations with both roll and pitch angles of 0.5° and 1°, the positioning accuracy was up to 1.0 mm and 2.3 mm in the AP direction for the target 87 mm away from the isocenter, respectively. The irradiation targeting accuracy was up to 2.1 mm and 2.6 mm in the AP direction for the target 87 mm away from the isocenter, respectively. The off-isocenter irradiation targeting accuracy became worse than the positioning accuracy. Both off-isocenter accuracies worsened in proportion to rotation angles and the distance from the isocenter to the targets. It is necessary to examine the set-up margin for off-isocenter multiple targets at each institution because irradiation targeting accuracy is peculiar to the linac machine.

Targeting Accuracy of Image-Guided Radiosurgery for Intracranial Lesions: A Comparison Across Multiple Linear Accelerator Platforms

PURPOSE

To evaluate the overall positioning accuracy of image-guided intracranial radiosurgery across multiple linear accelerator platforms.

METHODS

A computed tomography scan with a slice thickness of 1.0 mm was acquired of an anthropomorphic head phantom in a BrainLAB U-frame mask. The phantom was embedded with three 5-mm diameter tungsten ball bearings, simulating a central, a left, and an anterior cranial lesion. The ball bearings were positioned to radiation isocenter under ExacTrac X-ray or cone-beam computed tomography image guidance on 3 Linacs: (1) ExacTrac X-ray localization on a Novalis Tx; (2) cone-beam computed tomography localization on the Novalis Tx; (3) cone-beam computed tomography localization on a TrueBeam; and (4) cone-beam computed tomography localization on an Edge. Each ball bearing was positioned 5 times to the radiation isocenter with different initial setup error following the 4 image guidance procedures on the 3 Linacs, and the mean (µ) and one standard deviation (σ) of the residual error were compared.

RESULTS

Averaged overall 3 ball bearing locations, the vector length of the residual setup error in mm (µ ± σ) was 0.6 ± 0.2, 1.0 ± 0.5, 0.2 ± 0.1, and 0.3 ± 0.1 on ExacTrac X-ray localization on a Novalis Tx, cone-beam computed tomography localization on the Novalis Tx, cone-beam computed tomography localization on a TrueBeam, and cone-beam computed tomography localization on an Edge, with their range in mm being 0.4 to 1.1, 0.4 to 1.9, 0.1 to 0.5, and 0.2 to 0.6, respectively. The congruence between imaging and radiation isocenters in mm was 0.6 ± 0.1, 0.7 ± 0.1, 0.3 ± 0.1, and 0.2 ± 0.1, for the 4 systems, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting accuracy comparable to frame-based stereotactic radiosurgery can be achieved with image-guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery treatment.

Development of image quality assurance measures of the ExacTrac localization system using commercially available image evaluation software and hardware for image-guided radiotherapy

Quality assurance (QA) of the image quality for image‐guided localization systems is crucial to ensure accurate visualization and localization of target volumes. In this study, a methodology was developed to assess and evaluate the constancy of the high‐contrast spatial resolution, dose, energy, contrast, and geometrical accuracy of the BrainLAB ExacTrac system. An in‐house fixation device was constructed to hold the QCkV‐1 phantom firmly and reproducibly against the face of the flat panel detectors. Two image sets per detector were acquired using ExacTrac preset console settings over a period of three months. The image sets were analyzed in PIPSpro and the following metrics were recorded: high‐contrast spatial resolution (f30,f40,f50 (lp/mm)), noise, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio. Geometrical image accuracy was evaluated by assessing the length between to predetermined points of the QCkV‐1 phantom. Dose and kVp were recorded using the Unfors RaySafe Xi R/F Detector. The kVp and dose were evaluated for the following: Cranial Standard (CS) (80 kV,80 mA,80 ms), Thorax Standard (TS) (120 kV,160 mA,160 ms), Abdomen Standard (AS) (120 kV,160 mA,130 ms), and Pelvis Standard (PS) (120 kV,160 mA,160 ms). With regard to high‐contrast spatial resolution, the mean values of the f30 (lp/mm), f40 (lp/mm) and f50 (lp/mm) for the left detector were 1.39±0.04,1.24±0.05, and 1.09±0.04, respectively, while for the right detector they were 1.38±0.04,1.22±0.05, and 1.09±0.05, respectively. Mean CNRs for the left and right detectors were 148±3 and 143±4, respectively. For geometrical accuracy, both detectors had a measured image length of the QCkV‐1 of 57.9±0.5mm. The left detector showed dose measurements of 20.4±0.2μGy(CS), 191.8±0.7μGy(TS), 154.2±0.7μGy(AS), and 192.2±0.6μGy(PS), while the right detector showed 20.3±0.3μGy(CS), 189.7±0.8μGy(TS), 151.0±0.7μGy(AS), and 189.7±0.8μGy(PS), respectively. For X‐ray energy, the left detector (right X‐ray tube) had mean kVp readings of 81.6±0.5(CS), 122.5±0.5(TS), 122.0±0.8(AS), and 122.1±0.7(PS), and the right detector (left X‐ray tube) had 81.6±0.5(CS), 120.8±0.5(TS), 120.9±0.6(AS), and 121.3±0.7(PS). Run charts were created so that each parameter could be tracked over time and the constancy of the system could be monitored. A methodology was developed to assess the basic image quality parameters recommended by TG‐142 for the ExacTrac system. The ExacTrac system shows a consistent dose, kVp, high‐contrast spatial resolution, CNR, and geometrical accuracy for each detector over the evaluated timeframe.

PACS number: 87.10.‐e

Defining the optimal planning target volume in image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery of brain metastases: results of a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To identify an optimal margin about the gross target volume (GTV) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of brain metastases, minimizing toxicity and local recurrence.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Adult patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases less than 4 cm in greatest dimension, no previous brain radiation therapy, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) above 70 were eligible for this institutional review board-approved trial. Individual lesions were randomized to 1- or 3- mm uniform expansion of the GTV defined on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The resulting planning target volume (PTV) was treated to 24, 18, or 15 Gy marginal dose for maximum PTV diameters less than 2, 2 to 2.9, and 3 to 3.9 cm, respectively, using a linear accelerator-based image-guided system. The primary endpoint was local recurrence (LR). Secondary endpoints included neurocognition Mini-Mental State Examination, Trail Making Test Parts A and B, quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain), radionecrosis (RN), need for salvage radiation therapy, distant failure (DF) in the brain, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Between February 2010 and November 2012, 49 patients with 80 brain metastases were treated. The median age was 61 years, the median KPS was 90, and the predominant histologies were non-small cell lung cancer (25 patients) and melanoma (8). Fifty-five, 19, and 6 lesions were treated to 24, 18, and 15 Gy, respectively. The PTV/GTV ratio, volume receiving 12 Gy or more, and minimum dose to PTV were significantly higher in the 3-mm group (all P<.01), and GTV was similar (P=.76). At a median follow-up time of 32.2 months, 11 patients were alive, with median OS 10.6 months. LR was observed in only 3 lesions (2 in the 1 mm group, P=.51), with 6.7% LR 12 months after SRS. Biopsy-proven RN alone was observed in 6 lesions (5 in the 3-mm group, P=.10). The 12-month DF rate was 45.7%. Three months after SRS, no significant change in neurocognition or quality of life was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

SRS was well tolerated, with low rates of LR and RN in both cohorts. However, given the higher potential risk of RN with a 3-mm margin, a 1-mm GTV expansion is more appropriate.

Clinical Assessment of 2D/3D Registration Accuracy in 4 Major Anatomic Sites Using On-Board 2D Kilovoltage Images for 6D Patient Setup

To provide a comprehensive assessment of patient setup accuracy in 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs) using 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D/3D) image registration with on-board 2-dimensional kilovoltage (OB-2 DkV) radiographic images, we evaluated cranial, head and neck (HN), and thoracic and abdominal sites under clinical conditions. A fast 2D/3D image registration method using graphics processing unit GPU was modified for registration between OB-2 DkV and 3D simulation computed tomography (simCT) images, with 3D/3D registration as the gold standard for 6 DOF alignment. In 2D/3D registration, body roll rotation was obtained solely by matching orthogonal OB-2 DkV images with a series of digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) from simCT with a small rotational increment along the gantry rotation axis. The window/level adjustments for optimal visualization of the bone in OB-2 DkV and DRRs were performed prior to registration. Ideal patient alignment at the isocenter was calculated and used as an initial registration position. In 3D/3D registration, cone-beam CT (CBCT) was aligned to simCT on bony structures using a bone density filter in 6DOF. Included in this retrospective study were 37 patients treated in 55 fractions with frameless stereotactic radiosurgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy for cranial and paraspinal cancer. A cranial phantom was used to serve as a control. In all cases, CBCT images were acquired for patient setup with subsequent OB-2 DkV verification. It was found that the accuracy of the 2D/3D registration was 0.0 ± 0.5 mm and 0.1° ± 0.4° in phantom. In patient, it is site dependent due to deformation of the anatomy: 0.2 ± 1.6 mm and -0.4° ± 1.2° on average for each dimension for the cranial site, 0.7 ± 1.6 mm and 0.3° ± 1.3° for HN, 0.7 ± 2.0 mm and -0.7° ± 1.1° for the thorax, and 1.1 ± 2.6 mm and -0.5° ± 1.9° for the abdomen. Anatomical deformation and presence of soft tissue in 2D/3D registration affect the consistency with 3D/3D registration in 6 DOF: the discrepancy increases in superior to inferior direction.

Commissioning and initial stereotactic ablative radiotherapy experience with Vero

The purpose of this study is to describe the comprehensive commissioning process and initial clinical performance of the Vero linear accelerator, a new radiotherapy device recently installed at UT Southwestern Medical Center specifically developed for delivery of image‐guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). The Vero system utilizes a ring gantry to integrate a beam delivery platform with image guidance systems. The ring is capable of rotating ± 60° about the vertical axis to facilitate noncoplanar beam arrangements ideal for SABR delivery. The beam delivery platform consists of a 6 MV C‐band linac with a 60 leaf MLC projecting a maximum field size of 15×15 cm2 at isocenter. The Vero planning and delivery systems support a range of treatment techniques, including fixed beam conformal, dynamic conformal arcs, fixed gantry IMRT in either SMLC (step‐and‐shoot) or DMLC (dynamic) delivery, and hybrid arcs, which combines dynamic conformal arcs and fixed beam IMRT delivery. The accelerator and treatment head are mounted on a gimbal mechanism that allows the linac and MLC to pivot in two dimensions for tumor tracking. Two orthogonal kV imaging subsystems built into the ring facilitate both stereoscopic and volumetric (CBCT) image guidance. The system is also equipped with an always‐active electronic portal imaging device (EPID). We present our commissioning process and initial clinical experience focusing on SABR applications with the Vero, including: (1) beam data acquisition; (2) dosimetric commissioning of the treatment planning system, including evaluation of a Monte Carlo algorithm in a specially‐designed anthropomorphic thorax phantom; (3) validation using the Radiological Physics Center thorax, head and neck (IMRT), and spine credentialing phantoms; (4) end‐to‐end evaluation of IGRT localization accuracy; (5) ongoing system performance, including isocenter stability; and (6) clinical SABR applications.

PACS number: 87.53.Ly

Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Residual Setup Errors and Intra-Fraction Motion Using the Stereotactic X-Ray Image Guidance Verification System

Purpose

To determine the precision of our institution’s current immobilization devices for spine SBRT, ultimately leading to recommendations for appropriate planning margins.

Methods

We identified 12 patients (25 treatments) with spinal metastasis treated with spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). The Body-FIX system was used as immobilization device for thoracic (T) and lumbar (L) spine lesions. The head and shoulder mask system was used as immobilization device for cervical (C) spine lesions. Initial patient setup used the infrared positioning system with body markers. Stereotactic X-ray imaging was then performed and correction was made if the initial setup error exceeded predetermined institutional tolerances, 1.5 mm for translation and 2° for rotation. Three additional sets of verification X-rays were obtained pre-, mid-, and post-treatment for all treatments.

Results

Intrafraction motion regardless of immobilization technique was found to be 1.28 ± 0.57 mm. The mean and standard deviation of the variances along each direction were as follows: Superior-inferior, 0.56 ± 0.39 mm and 0.77 ± 0.52 mm, (p = 0.25); Anterior-posterior, 0.57 ± 0.43 mm and 1.14 ± 0.61 mm, (p = 0.01); Left-right, 0.48 ± 0.34 mm and 0.74 ± 0.40 mm, (p = 0.09) respectively. There was a significantly greater difference in the average 3D variance of the BodyFIX as compared to the head and shoulder mask immobilization system, 1.04 ± 0.46 mm and 1.71 ± 0.52 mm; (p = 0.003) respectively.

Conclusions

Overall, our institution’s image guidance system using stereotactic X-ray imaging verification provides acceptable localization accuracy as previously defined in the literature. We observed a greater intrafraction motion for the head and shoulder mask as compared with the BodyFIX immobilization system, which may be a result of greater C-spine mobility and/or the suboptimal mask immobilization. Thus, better immobilization techniques for C-spine SBRT are needed to reduce setup error and intrafraction motion. We are currently exploring alternative C-spine immobilization techniques to improve set up accuracy and decrease intrafraction motion during treatment.

Is ExacTrac x-ray system an alternative to CBCT for positioning patients with head and neck cancers?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the usefulness of a six-degrees-of freedom (6D) correction using ExacTrac robotics system in patients with head-and-neck (HN) cancer receiving radiation therapy.

METHODS

Local setup accuracy was analyzed for 12 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient position was imaged daily upon two different protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac (ET) images correction. Setup data from either approach were compared in terms of both residual errors after correction and punctual displacement of selected regions of interest (Mandible, C2, and C6 vertebral bodies).

RESULTS

On average, both protocols achieved reasonably low residual errors after initial correction. The observed differences in shift vectors between the two protocols showed that CBCT tends to weight more C2 and C6 at the expense of the mandible, while ET tends to average more differences among the different ROIs.

CONCLUSIONS

CBCT, even without 6D correction capabilities, seems preferable to ET for better consistent alignment and the capability to see soft tissues. Therefore, in our experience, CBCT represents a benchmark for positioning head and neck cancer patients.

Automatic patient alignment system using 3D ultrasound

PURPOSE

Recent developments in radiation therapy such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or dose painting promise to provide better dose distribution on the tumor. For effective application of these methods the exact positioning of the patient and the localization of the irradiated organ and surrounding structures is crucial. Especially with respect to the treatment of the prostate, ultrasound (US) allows for differentiation between soft tissue and was therefore applied by various repositioning systems, such as BAT or Clarity. The authors built a new system which uses 3D US at both sites, the CT room and the intervention room and applied a 3D/3D US/US registration for automatic repositioning.

METHODS

In a first step the authors applied image preprocessing methods to prepare the US images for an optimal registration process. For the 3D/3D registration procedure five different metrics were evaluated. To find the image metric which fits best for a particular patient three 3D US images were taken at the CT site and registered to each other. From these results an US registration error was calculated. The most successful image metric was then applied for the US/US registration process. The success of the whole repositioning method was assessed by taking the results of an ExacTrac system as golden standard.

RESULTS

The US/US registration error was found to be 2.99 ± 1.54 mm with respect to the mutual information metric by Mattes (eleven patients) which revealed to be the most suitable of the assessed metrics. For complete repositioning chain the error amounted to 4.15 ± 1.20 mm (ten patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors developed a system for patient repositioning which works automatically without the necessity of user interaction with an accuracy which seems to be suitable for clinical application.