Automatic image guidance for prostate IMRT using low dose CBCT

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: is the technology ready to be the standard of care?

Prostate cancer is the second most prevalent solid tumor diagnosed in men in the United States and Western Europe. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is touted as a superior type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the treatment of various tumors. SBRT developed from the theory that high doses of radiation from brachytherapy implant seeds could be recapitulated from advanced technology of radiation treatment planning and delivery. Moreover, SBRT has been theorized to be advantageous compared to other RT techniques because it has a treatment course shorter than that of conventionally fractionated EBRT (a single session, five days per week, for about two weeks vs. eight weeks), is non-invasive, is more effective at killing tumor cells, and is less likely to cause damage to normal tissue. In areas of the US and Europe where there is limited access to RT centers, SBRT is frequently being used to treat prostate cancer, even though long-term data about its efficacy and safety are not well established. We review the impetus behind SBRT and the current clinical evidence supporting its use for prostate cancer, thus providing oncologists and primary care physicians with an understanding of the continually evolving field of prostate radiation therapy. Studies of SBRT provide encouraging results of biochemical control and late toxicity. However, they are limited by a number of factors, including short follow-up, exclusion of intermediate- and high-risk patients, and relatively small number of patients treated. Currently, SBRT regimens should only be used in the context of clinical trials.

Computerized estimation of patient setup errors in portal images based on localized pelvic templates for prostate cancer radiotherapy

We have developed a computerized method for estimating patient setup errors in portal images based on localized pelvic templates for prostate cancer radiotherapy. The patient setup errors were estimated based on a template-matching technique that compared the portal image and a localized pelvic template image with a clinical target volume produced from a digitally reconstructed radiography (DRR) image of each patient. We evaluated the proposed method by calculating the residual error between the patient setup error obtained by the proposed method and the gold standard setup error determined by consensus between two radiation oncologists. Eleven training cases with prostate cancer were used for development of the proposed method, and then we applied the method to 10 test cases as a validation test. As a result, the residual errors in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior and left-right directions were smaller than 2 mm for the validation test. The mean residual error was 2.65 ± 1.21 mm in the Euclidean distance for training cases, and 3.10 ± 1.49 mm for the validation test. There was no statistically significant difference in the residual error between the test for training cases and the validation test (P = 0.438). The proposed method appears to be robust for detecting patient setup error in the treatment of prostate cancer radiotherapy.

[Comparison of setup accuracy between ExacTrac X-ray 6 dimensions and cone-beam computed tomography for intracranial and pelvic image-guided radiotherapy]

The aim of this study was to compare the setup difference measured with ExacTrac X-ray 6D (ETX6D) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for non-invasive fractionated radiotherapy. Setup data were collected on a Novalis Tx treatment unit for both a head phantom and patients with intracranial tumors and a pelvic phantom and patients with prostate cancer. Initially, setup was done for a phantom using ETX6D. Secondly, a treatment couch was shifted or rotated by each already known value. Thirdly, ETX6D and CBCT scans were obtained. Finally, setup difference was determined: the registrations of ETX6D images with the corresponding digitally reconstructed radiographs using ETX6D fusion, and registrations of CBCT images with the planning CT using online 6D fusion. The setup difference between ETX6D and CBCT was compared. The impact of shifts and rotations on the difference was evaluated. Patients' setup data was similarly analyzed. In phantom experiments, the root mean square (RMS) of difference of the shift and rotation was less than 0.45 mm for translations, and 0.17 degrees for rotations. In intracranial patients' data, the RMS of that was 0.55 mm and 0.44 degree, respectively. In prostate cancer patients' data, the RMS of that was 0.77 mm and 0.79 degree, respectively. In this study, we observed modest setup differences between ETX6D and CBCT. These differences were generally less than 1.00 mm for translations, and 1.00 degrees for rotations, respectively.

Reconstruction of a cone-beam CT image via forward iterative projection matching

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the feasibility of reconstructing a cone-beam CT (CBCT) image by deformably altering a prior fan-beam CT (FBCT) image such that it matches the anatomy portrayed in the CBCT projection data set.

METHODS

A prior FBCT image of the patient is assumed to be available as a source image. A CBCT projection data set is obtained and used as a target image set. A parametrized deformation model is applied to the source FBCT image, digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) that emulate the CBCT projection image geometry are calculated and compared to the target CBCT projection data, and the deformation model parameters are adjusted iteratively until the DRRs optimally match the CBCT projection data set. The resulting deformed FBCT image is hypothesized to be an accurate representation of the patient's anatomy imaged by the CBCT system. The process is demonstrated via numerical simulation. A known deformation is applied to a prior FBCT image and used to create a synthetic set of CBCT target projections. The iterative projection matching process is then applied to reconstruct the deformation represented in the synthetic target projections; the reconstructed deformation is then compared to the known deformation. The sensitivity of the process to the number of projections and the DRR/CBCT projection mismatch is explored by systematically adding noise to and perturbing the contrast of the target projections relative to the iterated source DRRs and by reducing the number of projections.

RESULTS

When there is no noise or contrast mismatch in the CBCT projection images, a set of 64 projections allows the known deformed CT image to be reconstructed to within a nRMS error of 1% and the known deformation to within a nRMS error of 7%. A CT image nRMS error of less than 4% is maintained at noise levels up to 3% of the mean projection intensity, at which the deformation error is 13%. At 1% noise level, the number of projections can be reduced to 8 while maintaining CT image and deformation errors of less than 4% and 13%, respectively. The method is sensitive to contrast mismatch between the simulated projections and the target projections when the soft-tissue contrast in the projections is low.

CONCLUSIONS

By using prior knowledge available in a FBCT image, the authors show that a CBCT image can be iteratively reconstructed from a comparatively small number of projection images, thus saving acquisition time and reducing imaging dose. This will enable more frequent daily imaging during radiation therapy. Because the process preserves the CT numbers of the FBCT image, the resulting 3D image intensities will be more accurate than a CBCT image reconstructed via conventional backprojection methods. Reconstruction errors are insensitive to noise at levels beyond what would typically be found in CBCT projection data, but are sensitive to contrast mismatch errors between the CBCT projection data and the DRRs.