A measurement technique to determine the calibration accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking system to radiation isocenter

On the selection of gantry and collimator angles for isocenter localization using Winston-Lutz tests

In Winston-Lutz (WL) tests, the isocenter of a linear accelerator (linac) is determined as the intersection of radiation central axes (CAX) from multiple gantry, collimator, and couch angles. It is well known that the CAX can wobble due to mechanical imperfections of the linac. Previous studies suggested that the wobble varies with gantry and collimator angles. Therefore, the isocenter determined in the WL tests has a profound dependence on the gantry and collimator angles at which CAX are sampled. In this study, we evaluated the systematic and random errors in the iso-centers determined with different CAX sampling schemes. Digital WL tests were performed on six linacs. For each WL test, 63 CAX were sampled at nine gantry angles and seven collimator angles. Subsets of these data were used to simulate the effects of various CAX sampling schemes. An isocenter was calculated from each subset of CAX and compared against the reference isocenter, which was calculated from 48 opposing CAX. The differences between the calculated isocenters and the reference isocenters ranged from 0 to 0.8 mm. The differences diminished to less than 0.2 mm when 24 or more CAX were sampled. Isocenters determined with collimator 0° were vertically lower than those determined with collimator 90° and 270°. Isocenter localization errors in the longitudinal direction (along the axis of gantry rotation) showed a strong dependence on the collimator angle selected. The errors in all directions were significantly reduced when opposing collimator angles and opposing gantry angles were employed. The isocenter localization errors were less than 0.2 mm with the common CAX sampling scheme, which used four cardinal gantry angles and two opposing collimator angles. Reproducibility stud-ies on one linac showed that the mean and maximum variations of CAX during the WL tests were 0.053 mm and 0.30 mm, respectively. The maximal variation in the resulting isocenters was 0.068 mm if 48 CAX were used, or 0.13 mm if four CAX were used. Quantitative results from this study are useful for understanding and minimizing the isocenter uncertainty in WL tests.

A system to use electromagnetic tracking for the quality assurance of brachytherapy catheter digitization

PURPOSE

To investigate the use of a system using electromagnetic tracking (EMT), post-processing and an error-detection algorithm for detecting errors and resolving uncertainties in high-dose-rate brachytherapy catheter digitization for treatment planning.

METHODS

EMT was used to localize 15 catheters inserted into a phantom using a stepwise acquisition technique. Five distinct acquisition experiments were performed. Noise associated with the acquisition was calculated. The dwell location configuration was extracted from the EMT data. A CT scan of the phantom was performed, and five distinct catheter digitization sessions were performed. No a priori registration of the CT scan coordinate system with the EMT coordinate system was performed. CT-based digitization was automatically extracted from the brachytherapy plan DICOM files (CT), and rigid registration was performed between EMT and CT dwell positions. EMT registration error was characterized in terms of the mean and maximum distance between corresponding EMT and CT dwell positions per catheter. An algorithm for error detection and identification was presented. Three types of errors were systematically simulated: swap of two catheter numbers, partial swap of catheter number identification for parts of the catheters (mix), and catheter-tip shift. Error-detection sensitivity (number of simulated scenarios correctly identified as containing an error/number of simulated scenarios containing an error) and specificity (number of scenarios correctly identified as not containing errors/number of correct scenarios) were calculated. Catheter identification sensitivity (number of catheters correctly identified as erroneous across all scenarios/number of erroneous catheters across all scenarios) and specificity (number of catheters correctly identified as correct across all scenarios/number of correct catheters across all scenarios) were calculated. The mean detected and identified shift was calculated.

RESULTS

The maximum noise ±1 standard deviation associated with the EMT acquisitions was 1.0 ± 0.1 mm, and the mean noise was 0.6 ± 0.1 mm. Registration of all the EMT and CT dwell positions was associated with a mean catheter error of 0.6 ± 0.2 mm, a maximum catheter error of 0.9 ± 0.4 mm, a mean dwell error of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm, and a maximum dwell error of 1.3 ± 0.7 mm. Error detection and catheter identification sensitivity and specificity of 100% were observed for swap, mix and shift (≥2.6 mm for error detection; ≥2.7 mm for catheter identification) errors. A mean detected shift of 1.8 ± 0.4 mm and a mean identified shift of 1.9 ± 0.4 mm were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Registration of the EMT dwell positions to the CT dwell positions was possible with a residual mean error per catheter of 0.6 ± 0.2 mm and a maximum error for any dwell of 1.3 ± 0.7 mm. These low residual registration errors show that quality assurance of the general characteristics of the catheters and of possible errors affecting one specific dwell position is possible. The sensitivity and specificity of the catheter digitization verification algorithm was 100% for swap and mix errors and for shifts ≥2.6 mm. On average, shifts ≥1.8 mm were detected, and shifts ≥1.9 mm were detected and identified.