Assessment of setup uncertainties for various tumor sites when using daily CBCT for more than 2200 VMAT treatments

Evaluation of the trend of set-up errors during the treatment period using set-up margin in prostate radiotherapy

Accurate information on set-up error during radiotherapy is essential for determining the optimal number of treatments in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This necessitates careful control by the radiotherapy staff to assess the patient's condition. This study aimed to develop an evaluation method of the temporal trends in a patient's specific prostate movement during treatment using image matching and margin values. This study included 65 patients who underwent prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (mean treatment time, 87.2 s). Set-up errors were assessed using bone, inter-, and intra-fraction marker matching across 39 fractions. The set-up margin was determined by dividing the four periods into 39 fractions using Stroom's formula and correlation coefficient. The intra-fraction set-up error was biased in the anterior-superior (AS) direction during treatment. The temporal trend of set-up errors during radiotherapy slightly increased based on bone matching and inter-fraction marker matching, with a 1.6-mm difference in the set-up margin fractions 11 to 20. The correlation coefficient of the mean prostate movement during treatment significantly decreased in the superior-inferior direction, while remaining high in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions. Image matching contributed significantly to the improvement of set-up errors; however, careful attention is needed for prostate movement in the AS direction, particularly during short treatment times. Understanding the trend of set-up errors during the treatment period is essential in numerical information sharing on patient condition and evaluating the margins for tailored hypo-fractionated radiotherapy, considering the facility's image-guided radiation therapy technology.

Planning target volume margin in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy: Estimations derived from own data and literature

Planning target volume (PTV) to deliver the desired dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) accounts for systematic (∑) and random (σ) errors during the planning and execution of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). As these errors vary at different departments, this study was conducted to determine the 3-dimensional PTV (PTV3D) margins for head and neck cancer (HNC) at our center. The same was also estimated from reported studies for a comparative assessment. A total of 77 patients with HNCs undergoing IMRT were included. Of these, 39 patients received radical RT and 38 received postoperative IMRT. An extended no action level protocol was implemented using on-board imaging. Shifts in the mediolateral (ML), anteroposterior (AP), and superoinferior (SI) directions of each patient were recorded for every fraction. PTV margins in each direction (ML, AP, SI) and PTV3D were calculated using van Herk's equation. Weighted PTV3D was also computed from the ∑ and σ errors in each direction published in the literature for HNC. Our patients were staged T2-4 (66/77) and N0 (39/77). In all, 2280 on-board images were acquired, and daily shifts in each direction were recorded. The PTV margins in the ML, AP, and SI directions were computed as 3.2 mm, 2.9 mm, and 2.6 mm, respectively. The PTV3D margin was estimated to be 6.5 mm. This compared well with the weighted median PTV3D of 7.2 mm (range: 3.2 to 9.9) computed from the 16 studies reported in the literature. To ensure ≥95% CTV dose coverage in 90% of HNC patients, PTV3D margin for our department was estimated as 6.5 mm. This agrees with the weighted median PTV3D margin of 7.2 mm computed from the 16 published studies in HNCs. Site-specific PTV3D margin estimations should be an integral component of the quality assurance protocol of each department to ensure adequate coverage of dose to CTV during IMRT.

Assessment of dosimetric impact of interfractional 6D setup error in tongue cancer treated with IMRT and VMAT using daily kV-CBCT

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric influence of 6-dimensional (6D) interfractional setup error in tongue cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT).

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included 20 tongue cancer patients treated with IMRT (10), VMAT (10), and daily kV-CBCT image guidance. Interfraction 6D setup errors along the lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll, and yaw axes were evaluated for 600 CBCTs. Structures in the planning CT were deformed to the CBCT using deformable registration. For each fraction, a reference CBCT structure set with no rotation error was created. The treatment plan was recalculated on the CBCTs with the rotation error (R_Error), translation error (T_Error), and translation plus rotation error (T+R_Error). For targets and organs at risk (OARs), the dosimetric impacts of R_Error, T_Error, and T+R_Error were evaluated without and with moderate correction of setup errors.

Results

The maximum dose variation ΔD (%) for D_98% in clinical target volumes (CTV): CTV-60, CTV-54, planning target volumes (PTV): PTV-60, and PTV-54 was -1.2%, -1.9%, -12.0%, and -12.3%, respectively, in the T+R_Error without setup error correction. The maximum ΔD (%) for D_98% in CTV-60, CTV-54, PTV-60, and PTV-54 was -1.0%, -1.7%, -9.2%, and -9.5%, respectively, in the T+R_Error with moderate setup error correction. The dosimetric impact of interfractional 6D setup errors was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for D_98% in CTV-60, CTV-54, PTV-60, and PTV-54.

Conclusions

The uncorrected interfractional 6D setup errors could significantly impact the delivered dose to targets and OARs in tongue cancer. That emphasized the importance of daily 6D setup error correction in IMRT and VMAT.

Multicomponent mathematical model for tumor volume calculation with setup error using single-isocenter stereotactic radiotherapy for multiple brain metastases

We evaluated the tumor residual volumes considering six degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) patient setup errors in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) with multicomponent mathematical model using single-isocenter irradiation for brain metastases. Simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with 1.0 (GTV 1), 2.0 (GTV 2), and 3.0 (GTV 3)-cm diameters were used. The distance between the GTV center and isocenter (d) was set at 0-10 cm. The GTV was simultaneously translated within 0-1.0 mm (T) and rotated within 0°-1.0° (R) in the three axis directions using affine transformation. We optimized the tumor growth model parameters using measurements of non-small cell lung cancer cell lines' (A549 and NCI-H460) growth. We calculated the GTV residual volume at the irradiation's end using the physical dose to the GTV when the GTV size, d, and 6DoF setup error varied. The d-values that satisfy tolerance values (10%, 35%, and 50%) of the GTV residual volume rate based on the pre-irradiation GTV volume were determined. The larger the tolerance value set for both cell lines, the longer the distance to satisfy the tolerance value. In GTV residual volume evaluations based on the multicomponent mathematical model on SRT with single-isocenter irradiation, the smaller the GTV size and the larger the distance and 6DoF setup error, the shorter the distance that satisfies the tolerance value might need to be.

Assessing setup errors and shifting margins for planning target volume in head, neck, and breast cancer

Accurately calculating setup errors is crucial in ensuring quality assurance for patients undergoing radiation therapy treatment. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the systematic, random, and planning target volume (PTV) margin errors for patients with head and neck cancer (n=48) and breast cancer (n=50). The treatment setup was performed using electronic portal imaging (EPIDs) and irradiated using Elekta linac. The errors were calculated using the van Herk formula. The systematic error for the head and neck was 0.89, 0.43, and 1.49 mm on the x, y, and z-axis, respectively, and 0.39, 0.74, 0.38 for the breast cases. The random error was 0.82, 0.68, 0.94 mm for the head and neck and 0.66, 0.72, 0.79 mm for the breast. The PTV margin shifting error for the head and neck were 2.79, 1.55, and 4.38 mm, while it was 1.43, 2.35, and 1.50 mm for the breast. The setup errors varied according to the tumor location. The study highlights the potential benefits of using EPIDs for reducing uncertainties in setup verification procedures.

Evaluation of the dosimetric influence of interfractional 6D setup error in hypofractionated prostate cancer treated with IMRT and VMAT using daily kV-CBCT

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in men and is usually treated with advanced intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Significant uncorrected interfractional 6-Dimensional setup errors could impact the delivered dose. The aim of this study was to assess the dosimetric impact of 6D interfractional setup errors in hypofractionated prostate cancer using daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT).

METHODS

This retrospective study comprised twenty prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated IMRT (8) and VMAT (12) with daily kV-CBCT image guidance. Interfraction 6D setup errors along lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll, and yaw axes were evaluated for 400 CBCTs. For targets and organs at risk (OARs), the dosimetric impact of rotational error (R_Error), translational error (T_Error), and translational plus rotational error (T+R_Error) were evaluated on kV-CBCT images.

RESULTS

The single fraction maximum T_Error ranged from 12-20 mm, and the R_Error ranged from 2.8⁰-3.0⁰. The maximum mean absolute dose variation ΔD in D_98% (dose to 98% volume) of CTV-55 and PTV-55 was -0.66±0.82 and -5.94±3.8 Gy, respectively, in the T+R_Error. The maximum ΔD (%) for D_98% and D_0.035cc in CTV-55 was -4.29% and 2.49%, respectively, while in PTV-55 it was -24.9% and 2.36%. The mean dose reduction for D_98% in CTV-55 and D_98% and D_95% in PTV-55 was statistically significant (p<0.05) for T_Error and T+R_Error. The mean dose variation for D_mean and D_50% in the rectum was statistically significant (p<0.05) for T_Error and T+R_Error.

CONCLUSION

The uncorrected interfractional 6D setup error results in significant target underdosing and OAR overdosing in prostate cancer. This emphasizes the need to correct interfractional 6D setup errors daily in IMRT and VMAT.

QUANTIFICATION OF 6D INTER-FRACTION TUMOUR LOCALISATION ERRORS IN TONGUE AND PROSTATE CANCER USING DAILY KV-CBCT FOR 1000 IMRT AND VMAT TREATMENT FRACTIONS

This study aimed to evaluate the 6D inter-fraction tumour localisation errors in 20 tongue and 20 prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy. The patient tumour localisation errors in lateral, longitudinal and vertical translation axes and pitch, roll and yaw rotational axes were analysed by automatic image registration of daily pretreatment kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) with planning CT in 1000 fractions. The overall mean error (M), systematic error (Σ), random error (σ) and planning target volume (PTV) margins were evaluated. The frequency distributions of setup errors were normally distributed about the mean except for pitch in the tongue and prostate. The overall 3D vector length ≥ 5 mm was 14.2 and 49.8% in the ca-tongue and ca-prostate, respectively. The frequency of rotational errors ≥1 degree was a maximum of 37 and 59.5%, respectively, in ca-tongue and ca-prostate. The M, Σ and σ for all translational and rotational axes decreased with increasing frequency of verification correction in ca-tongue and ca-prostate patients. Similarly, the PTV margin was reduced with no correction to alternate day correction from a maximum of 4.7 to 2.5 mm in ca-tongue and from a maximum of 8.6 to 4.7 mm in ca-prostate. The results emphasised the vital role of the higher frequency of kV-CBCT based setup correction in reducing M, Σ, σ and PTV margins in ca-tongue and ca-prostate patients.

Setup uncertainties and appropriate setup margins in the head-tilted supine position of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT)

Various applications of head-tilting techniques in whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) have been introduced. However, a study on the setup uncertainties and margins in head-tilting techniques has not been reported. This study evaluated the setup uncertainties and determined the appropriate planning target volume (PTV) margins for patients treated in the head-tilted supine (ht-SP) and conventional supine position (c-SP) in WBRT. Thirty patients who received WBRT at our institution between October 2020 and May 2021 in the c-SP and ht-SP were investigated. The DUON head mask (60124, Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) was used in the c-SP, and a thermoplastic U-Frame Mask (R420U, Klarity Medical & Equipment Co. Ltd., Lan Yu, China) was used in the ht-SP. Daily setup verification using planning computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT was corrected for translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (yaw) errors. In the c-SP, the means of systematic errors were -0.80, 0.79, and 0.37 mm and random errors were 0.27, 0.54, and 0.39 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively. Whereas, for the ht-SP, the means of systematic errors were -0.07, 0.73, and -0.63 mm, and random errors were 0.75, 1.39, 1.02 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively. The PTV margins were calculated using Stroom et al.’s [2Σ+0.7σ] and van Herk et al.’s recipe [2.5Σ+0.7σ]. Appropriate PTV margins with van Herk et al.’s recipe in WBRT were <2 mm and 1.5° in the c-SP and <3 mm and 2° in the ht-SP in the translational and rotational directions, respectively. Although the head tilt in the supine position requires more margin, it can be applied as a sufficiently stable and effective position in radiotherapy.

Is Halcyon feasible for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT?

Purpose

Halcyon linear accelerators employ intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques. The Halcyon offers translational, but not rotational, couch correction, which only allows a 3 degrees of freedom (3‐DOF) correction. In contrast, the TrueBeam (TB) linear accelerator offers full 6‐DOF corrections. This study aims to evaluate the difference in treatment plan quality for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT between the Halcyon and TB linear accelerators. In addition, this study will also investigate the effect of patient rotational setup errors on the final plan quality.

Methods

We analyzed 20 patients with a single‐level spine metastasis located between the T7 and L5 vertebrae near the spinal canal. The median planning target volume was 52.0 cm³ (17.9–138.7 cm³). The median tumor diameter in the axial plane was 4.6 cm (range 1.7–6.8 cm), in the sagittal plane was 3.3 cm (range 2–5 cm). The prescription doses were either 12–16 Gy in 1 fraction or 18–24 Gy in 3 fractions. All patients were treated on the TB linear accelerator with a 2.5 mm Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width. Treatment plans were retrospectively created for the Halcyon, which has a 5 mm effective MLC leaf width. The 20 patients had a total of 50 treatments. Analysis of the 50 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans showed average rotational setup errors of 0.6°, 1.2°, and 0.8° in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively. Rotational error in roll was not considered in this study, as the original TB plans used a coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, and each 1° of roll will contribute an error of 1/360. If a plan has 3 arcs, the contribution from errors in roll will be < 0.1%. To simulate different patient setup errors, for each patient, 12 CT image datasets were generated in Velocity AI with different rotational combinations at a pitch and yaw of 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively. We recalculated both the TB and Halcyon plans on these rotated images.  The dosimetric plan quality was evaluated based on the percent tumor coverage, the Conformity Index (CI), Gradient Index (GI), Homogeneity index (HI), the maximum dose to the cord/cauda, and the volume of the cord/cauda receiving 8, 10, and 12 Gy (V8Gy, V10Gy and V12Gy). Paired t‐tests were performed between the original and rotated plans with a significance level of 0.05.

Results

The Eclipse based VMAT plans on Halcyon achieved a similar target coverage (92.3 ± 3.0% vs. 92.4 ± 3.3%, p = 0.82) and CI (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2, p = 0.12) compared to the TB plans. The Gradient index of Halcyon is higher (3.96 ±0.8) than TB (3.85 ±0.7), but not statistically significant. The maximum dose to the spinal cord/cauda was comparable (11.1 ± 2.8 Gy vs. 11.4 ± 3.6 Gy, p = 0.39), as were the V8Gy, V10Gy and V12Gy to the cord/cauda. The dosimetric influence of patient rotational setup error was statistically insignificant for rotations of up to 1° pitch/yaw (with similar target coverage, CI, max cord/cauda dose and V8Gy, V10Gy, V12Gy for cord/cauda). The total number of monitor units (MUs) for Halcyon (4998 ± 1688) was comparable to that of TB (5463 ± 2155) (p = 0.09).

Conclusions

The Halcyon VMAT plans for a single thoracic or lumbar spine metastasis were dosimetrically comparable to the TB plans. Patient rotation within 1° in the pitch and yaw directions, if corrected by translation, resulted in insignificant dosimetric effects. The Halcyon linear accelerator is an acceptable alternative to TB for the treatment of single thoracic or lumbar spinal level metastasis, but users need to be cautious about the patient rotational setup error.  It is advisable to select patients appropriately, including only those with the thoracic or lumbar spine involvement and keeping at least 2 mm separation between the target and the cord/cauda. More margin is needed if the distance between the isocenter and cord/cauda is larger. It is advisable to place the planning isocenter close to the spinal canal to further mitigate the rotational error.

Summary

We simulated various scenarios of patient setup errors with different rotational combinations of pitch and yaw with 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively. Rotation was corrected with translation only to mimic the Halcyon treatment scenario. Using the Halcyon for treating a tumor in a single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment is feasible, but caution should be noted in patients requiring rotational corrections of > 1° in the absence of 6‐DOF correction capabilities.

PTV margin calculation for head and neck patients treated with VMAT: a systematic literature review

Aim:

The intent of the review was to identify different methodological approaches used to calculate the planning target volume (PTV) margin for head and neck patients treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and whether the necessary factors to calculate the margin size with the selected formula were used.

Materials and Methods:

A comprehensive, systematic search of related studies was done using the Hydi search engine and different databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest (Nursing and Allied Health), Scopus, ScienceDirect and tipsRO. The literature search included studies published between January 2007 and December 2020. Eligibility screening was performed by two reviewers.

Results:

A total of seven studies were found. All the reviewed studies used the Van Herk formula to measure the PTV margin. None of the studies incorporated the systematic errors of target volume delineation in the PTV equation. Inter-fraction translational errors were assessed in all the studies, whilst intra-fraction errors were only included in the margin equation for two studies. The studies showed great heterogeneity in the key characteristics, aims and methods.

Findings:

Since systemic errors from target volume delineation were not considered and not all studies assess intra-fraction errors, PTV margins may be underestimated. The recommendations are that studies need to determine the effect of target volume variance on PTV margins. It is also recommended to compare PTV margin results using various formulas.

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.

Assessing the reproducibility of CBCT-derived radiomics features using a novel three-dimensional printed phantom

PURPOSE

Radiomics modeling is an exciting avenue for enhancing clinical decision making and personalized treatment. Radiation oncology patients often undergo routine imaging for position verification, particularly using LINAC-mounted cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The wealth of imaging data collected in modern radiation therapy presents an ideal use case for radiomics modeling. Despite this, texture feature (TF) calculation can be limited by concerns over feature stability and reproducibility; in theory, this issue is compounded by the relatively poor image quality of CBCT, as well as variation of acquisition and reconstruction parameters.

METHODS

In this study, we developed and validated a novel three-dimensional (3D) printed phantom for evaluating CBCT-based TF reliability. The phantom has a cylindrical shape (22 cm diameter and 25.5 cm height) with five inner inserts designed to hold custom-printed rods (1 cm diameter and 10-20 cm height) of various materials, infill shapes, and densities. TF reproducibility was evaluated across and within three LINACs from a single vendor using sets of three consecutive CBCT taken with the head, thorax, and pelvis clinical imaging protocols. PyRadiomics was used to extract a standard set of TFs from regions of interest centered on each rod. Two-way mixed effects absolute agreement intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate TF reproducibility, with features showing ICC values above 0.9 considered robust if their Bonferroni-corrected p-value was below 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 63, 87, and 83 features exhibited test-retest reliability for the head, thorax, and pelvis imaging protocols respectively. When assessing stability between discreet imaging sessions on the same LINAC, these numbers were reduced to 5, 63, and 70 features, respectively. The thorax and pelvis protocols maintained a rich candidate feature space in inter-LINAC analysis with 61 and 65 features, respectively, exceeding the ICC criteria. Crucially, no features were deemed reproducible when compared between protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a 3D phantom for consistent evaluation of TF stability and reproducibility. For LINACs from a single vendor, our study found a substantial number of features available for robust radiomics modeling from CBCT imaging. However, some features showed variations across LINACs. Studies involving CBCT-based radiomics must preselect features prior to their use in clinical-based models.

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

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

Technological quality requirements for stereotactic radiotherapy : Expert review group consensus from the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy

This review details and discusses the technological quality requirements to ensure the desired quality for stereotactic radiotherapy using photon external beam radiotherapy as defined by the DEGRO Working Group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy and the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The covered aspects of this review are 1) imaging for target volume definition, 2) patient positioning and target volume localization, 3) motion management, 4) collimation of the irradiation and beam directions, 5) dose calculation, 6) treatment unit accuracy, and 7) dedicated quality assurance measures. For each part, an expert review for current state-of-the-art techniques and their particular technological quality requirement to reach the necessary accuracy for stereotactic radiotherapy divided into intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery in one single fraction (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is presented. All recommendations and suggestions for all mentioned aspects of stereotactic radiotherapy are formulated and related uncertainties and potential sources of error discussed. Additionally, further research and development needs in terms of insufficient data and unsolved problems for stereotactic radiotherapy are identified, which will serve as a basis for the future assignments of the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The review was group peer-reviewed, and consensus was obtained through multiple working group meetings.

Assessment of portal image resolution improvement using an external aluminum target and polystyrene electron filter

Background

In this study, an external 8 mm thick aluminum target was installed on the upper accessory tray mount of a medical linear accelerator head. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the external aluminum target beam (Al-target beam) on the portal image quality by analyzing the spatial and contrast resolutions. In addition, the image resolutions with the Al-target beams were compared with those of conventional 6 megavoltage (MV) images.

Methods

The optimized Al-target beam was calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. To validate the simulations, the percentage depth dose and lateral profiles were measured and compared with the modeled dose distributions. A PTW resolution phantom was used for imaging to assess the image resolution. The spatial resolution was quantified by determining the modulation transfer function. The contrast resolution was determined by a fine contrast difference between the 27 measurement areas. The spatial and contrast resolutions were compared with the those of conventional portal images.

Results

The measured and calculated percentage depth dose of the Al-target beam were consistent within 1.6%. The correspondence of measured and modelled profiles was evaluated by gamma analysis (3%, 3 mm) and all gamma values inside the field were less than one. The critical spatial frequencies (f₅₀) of the images obtained with the Al-target beam and conventional imaging beam were 0.745 lp/mm and 0.451 lp/mm, respectively. The limiting spatial frequencies (f₁₀) for the Al-target beam image and the conventional portal image were 2.39 lp/mm and 1.82 lp/mm, respectively. The Al-target beam resolved the smaller and lower contrast objects better than that of the MV photon beam.

Conclusion

The Al-target beams generated by the simple target installation method provided better spatial and contrast resolutions than those of the conventional 6 MV imaging beam.

Dosimetric influence of pitch in patient positioning for radiotherapy of long treatment volumes; the usefulness of six degree of freedom couch

OBJECTIVE:

Pitch, the rotation around the transversal axis of the patient during radiotherapy has little impact on the dose distribution of small spherical treatment volumes; however it might affect treatment of long volumes requiring a correction with a six degree of freedom couch.

METHODS:

We included 10 patients each with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and esophageal cancer, treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Pitch was simulated by tilting the planning CT in ventral and dorsal direction by ± 1.5° and ± 3°. Verification plans were calculated on the tilted datasets and were compared to the original plan and the dose constraints of the organs at risk (OAR).

RESULTS:

The deviation in dose to the planning target volume is increasing with the degree of pitch with mean changes of up to 2% for NPC and 1% for esophageal cancer. The most affected OAR in NPC patients are brainstem (max. dose +6.0%) and spinal cord (max. dose +10.0%) when tilted by 3° dorsally and lenses (max. dose +3.3%), oral mucosa (mean dose +2.6%) and parotid glands (mean dose +4.3%) when tilted by 3° ventrally. For esophageal cancer patients, there was no significant change in dose to any OAR. Whereas for esophageal cancer, all tilted treatment plans were still clinically acceptable regarding OAR, 5 NPC plans would no longer be acceptable with a pitch of 1.5° ventral (N = 1), 3° ventral (N = 2) and 3° dorsal (N = 2).

CONCLUSION:

Planning target volume coverage in both tumor entities was only slightly affected, but pitch errors could be relevant for OAR in NPC patients.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:

A correction with a six degree of freedom couch is recommended for NPC patients with a pitch mismatch of more than 1.5° to avoid exceeded doses to the OAR.

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

Aim

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Investigation of the use of external aluminium targets for portal imaging in a medical accelerator using Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation

OBJECTIVE

To install a low-Z target on the wedge tray mount of a medical linear accelerator to create a new image beam and to confirm image contrast enhancement.

METHODS

Experimental low-energy photon beams were produced with the linac running in the 6 MeV electron mode and with a low-Z target installed on the wedge tray mount [denoted 6 MeV (low-Z target)]. Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation was performed to analyse the energy spectrum and image contrast of a 6 MeV (low-Z target) beam. This study modelled the 6 MeV (low-Z target) beam and the 6 MV (megavoltage) radiotherapy photon beam and verified model validity by measurement. In addition, a contrast phantom was modelled to quantitatively compare the image contrasts of the 6 MeV (low-Z target) beam and the 6 MV radiotherapy photon beam. A low-Z target was fabricated to generate low-energy photons (25-150 keV) from incident electrons, and a portal image of the Alderson RANDO phantom was acquired using a clinical linear accelerator for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

The measured and calculated percentage depth dose of the 6 MV photon and 6 MeV (Al) beams were consistent within 1.5 and 1.6%, respectively, and calculated lateral profiles of the 6 MV photon beam and the 6 MeV (Al) beam were consistent with the measured results within 1.5 and 1.9%, respectively. Although low-energy photons (25-150 keV) of the 6 MV photon beam were only 0.3%, the Be, C, and Al low-Z targets, but not the Ti target, generated 34.4 to 38.5% low-energy photons. In 5 to 20 cm water phantoms, contrast of the 6 MeV (Al) beam was approximately 1.16 times greater than that of the 6 MV beam. The contrasts of 6 MeV (Al) and 6 MV photon beams in the 20 cm water phantom were ~34% lower than those in the 5 cm water phantom. 6 MeV (Al)/CR (computed radiography) images of the human body phantom were more vivid and detailed than 6 MV/EPID (electronic portal imaging device) and 6 MeV (Al)/EPID images.

CONCLUSION

The experimental beam with a low-Z target, which was simply installed on the wedge tray mount of the radiotherapy linear accelerator, generated significantly more low-energy photons than the 6 MV radiotherapy photon beam, and provided better quality portal images. Advances in knowledge: This study shows that, unlike the existing low-Z beam studies, a low-Z target can be installed outside the head of a linear accelerator to improve portal image quality.

National survey on image-guided radiotherapy practice in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

This survey aimed to assess the use of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) within New Zealand (NZ) and evaluate the quality of IGRT delivery.

METHOD

All nine centres in NZ were invited to participate in an online survey in November 2015. Questions were asked on type of IGRT technologies available, IGRT use by tumour site and frequency of imaging. In addition, questions were asked in reference to the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) White Paper recommendations on safe practice of IGRT.

RESULTS

Seven of the nine centres (78%) responded. Kilovoltage cone-beam CT (CBCT), kilovoltage planar imaging and megavoltage electronic portal imaging were the most commonly used IGRT technologies. CBCT was most frequently used in gynaecology (100%), genitourinary (86%) and head and neck (86%) sites. Despite the availability of similar IGRT technologies, there was significant variation in their application between centres. All centres used online IGRT; however, the frequency of imaging varied across the tumour sites and individual centres. Daily online IGRT use ranged from 43% to 86% across the tumour sites. Overall, there was good compliance by the NZ centres to the White Paper recommendations, with at least 71% reached for each element. However, the compliance rates for the individual centres ranged between 50% and 100%. The most commonly identified barrier to IGRT use was lack of guidelines/education (43%).

CONCLUSION

Image-guided radiotherapy is widely used in NZ; however, there is a wide variation in its application between centres. Detailed tumour site-specific, imaging modality-specific national guidelines will allow standardization of IGRT practices.

Methods for Reducing Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities in Oropharyngeal Cancer: Dose Reduction or Planning Target Volume Elimination

PURPOSE

Strategies to reduce the toxicities of head and neck radiation (ie, dysphagia [difficulty swallowing] and xerostomia [dry mouth]) are currently underway. However, the predicted benefit of dose and planning target volume (PTV) reduction strategies is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to compare the normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for swallowing and salivary structures in standard plans (70 Gy [P70]), dose-reduced plans (60 Gy [P60]), and plans eliminating the PTV margin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 38 oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) plans were analyzed. Standard organ-sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy plans (P70) were created and then modified by eliminating the PTVs and treating the clinical tumor volumes (CTVs) only (C70) or maintaining the PTV but reducing the dose to 60 Gy (P60). NTCP dose models for the pharyngeal constrictors, glottis/supraglottic larynx, parotid glands (PGs), and submandibular glands (SMGs) were analyzed. The minimal clinically important benefit was defined as a mean change in NTCP of >5%. The P70 NTCP thresholds and overlap percentages of the organs at risk with the PTVs (56-59 Gy, vPTV56) were evaluated to identify the predictors for NTCP improvement.

RESULTS

With the P60 plans, only the ipsilateral PG (iPG) benefited (23.9% vs 16.2%; P<.01). With the C70 plans, only the iPG (23.9% vs 17.5%; P<.01) and contralateral SMG (cSMG) (NTCP 32.1% vs 22.9%; P<.01) benefited. An iPG NTCP threshold of 20% and 30% predicted NTCP benefits for the P60 and C70 plans, respectively (P<.001). A cSMG NTCP threshold of 30% predicted for an NTCP benefit with the C70 plans (P<.001). Furthermore, for the iPG, a vPTV56 >13% predicted benefit with P60 (P<.001) and C70 (P=.002). For the cSMG, a vPTV56 >22% predicted benefit with C70 (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PTV elimination and dose-reduction lowered the NTCP of the iPG, and PTV elimination lowered the NTCP of the cSMG. NTCP thresholds and the percentage of overlap of the PTV with organs at risk can predict which patients will benefit and inform future clinical trial design.

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.

The impact of androgen deprivation therapy on setup errors during external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To determine whether setup errors during external beam radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer are influenced by the combination of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 175 patients treated for prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment was as follows: concurrent ADT plus RT, 33 patients (19%); neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT plus RT, 91 patients (52%); RT only, 51 patients (29%). Required couch shifts without rotations were recorded for each megavoltage (MV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan, and corresponding alignment shifts were recorded as left-right (x), superior-inferior (y), and anterior-posterior (z). The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare shifts by group. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation of couch shifts between groups. Mean prostate shifts and standard deviations (SD) were calculated and pooled to obtain mean or group systematic error (M), SD of systematic error (Σ), and SD of random error (σ).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in prostate shifts in any direction between the groups. Shifts on CBCT were all less than setup margins. A significant positive correlation was observed between prostate volume and the z‑direction prostate shift (r = 0.19, p = 0.04), regardless of ADT group, but not between volume and x‑ or y‑direction shifts (r = 0.04, p = 0.7; r = 0.03, p = 0.7). Random and systematic errors for all patient cohorts and ADT groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

Hormone therapy given concurrently with RT was not found to significantly impact setup errors. Prostate volume was significantly correlated with shifts in the anterior-posterior direction only.

MRI-guided prostate adaptive radiotherapy - A systematic review

Dose escalated radiotherapy improves outcomes for men with prostate cancer. A plateau for benefit from dose escalation using EBRT may not have been reached for some patients with higher risk disease. The use of increasingly conformal techniques, such as step and shoot IMRT or more recently VMAT, has allowed treatment intensification to be achieved whilst minimising associated increases in toxicity to surrounding normal structures. To support further safe dose escalation, the uncertainties in the treatment target position will need be minimised using optimal planning and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). In particular the increasing usage of profoundly hypo-fractionated stereotactic therapy is predicated on the ability to confidently direct treatment precisely to the intended target for the duration of each treatment. This article reviews published studies on the influences of varies types of motion on daily prostate position and how these may be mitigated to improve IGRT in future. In particular the role that MRI has played in the generation of data is discussed and the potential role of the MR-Linac in next-generation IGRT is discussed.

Analysis of the Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the Daily ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors

This study evaluated the setup uncertainties for brain sites when using BrainLAB's ExacTrac X-ray 6D system for daily pretreatment to determine the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Between August 2012 and April 2015, 28 patients with brain tumors were treated by daily image-guided radiotherapy using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guidance system of the Novalis-Tx linear accelerator. DUONTM (Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) masks were used to fix the head. The radiotherapy was fractionated into 27-33 treatments. In total, 844 image verifications were performed for 28 patients and used for the analysis. The setup corrections along with the systematic and random errors were analyzed for six degrees of freedom in the translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (pitch, roll, and yaw) dimensions. Optimal PTV margins were calculated based on van Herk et al.'s [margin recipe = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ - 3 mm] and Stroom et al.'s [margin recipe = 2∑ + 0.7σ] formulas. The systematic errors (∑) were 0.72, 1.57, and 0.97 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively, and 0.72°, 0.87°, and 0.83° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. The random errors (σ) were 0.31, 0.46, and 0.54 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical rotational dimensions, respectively, and 0.28°, 0.24°, and 0.31° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. According to van Herk et al.'s and Stroom et al.'s recipes, the recommended lateral PTV margins were 0.97 and 1.66 mm, respectively; the longitudinal margins were 1.26 and 3.47 mm, respectively; and the vertical margins were 0.21 and 2.31 mm, respectively. Therefore, daily setup verifications using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guide system are very useful for evaluating the setup uncertainties and determining the setup margin.