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

Single isocenter HyperArc treatment of multiple intracranial metastases: Targeting accuracy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

(A) To examine the alignment accuracy of CBCT guidance for brain metastases with off centered isocenters, (B) to test dose delivery and targeting accuracy for single isocenter treatments with multiple brain metastases. We report the results of the end-to-end test for Truebeam stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

MATERIALS/METHODS

An anthropomorphic CT head phantom was drilled with five MOSFET inserts and two PTW Pinpoint chamber inserts. The phantom was simulated, planned, and delivered. For the purpose of comparing the accuracy of alignment, CBCTs were acquired with the isocenter centered and offset superiorly 8 cm, inferiorly 8 cm, anteriorly 7 cm, posteriorly 7 cm, and right 5 cm. There were six degrees of freedom corrections applied to the plans, as well as intentional rotational and translational errors for dose comparisons. Dose accuracy checks were performed with MOSFET and PTW Pinpoint chamber, and targeting accuracy was assessed with GafChromic films.

RESULT

(A) Compared to centered CBCT, off-centered CBCT scan showed some alignment errors, with a maximum difference of 0.6-degree pitch and 0.9 mm translation when the phantom was placed 8 cm inferior off center. (B) For the single isocenter plan, measured doses of the five MOSFET were 95%-100% of the planned dose, whereas the multiple isocenter plans were 96%-100%. With intentional setup errors of 1-degree pitch, doses were 97.1%-100.4% compared to the perfect setup. The same was found for the two pinpoint chamber readings with 1-degree rotation and 1 mm translation. (C) Targeting accuracy for targets at the isocenter is 0.67 mm, within the machine specification of 0.75 mm. Targeting accuracy for isocenters 6-12 cm away from the target is in the range 0.67-1.18 mm.

CONCLUSION

(A) Single isocenter HyperArc treatments for multiple brain metastases are feasible and targeting accuracy is clinically acceptable. (B) The vertex in a cranial scan is very important for proper alignment.

The new SRS/FSRT technique HyperArc for benign brain lesions: a dosimetric analysis

To evaluate the potential benefit of HyperArc (HA) fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for the benign brain lesion. Sixteen patients with a single deep-seated, centrally located benign brain lesion treated by CyberKnife (CK, G4 cone-based model) were enrolled. Treatment plans for HA with two different optimization algorithms (SRS NTO and ALDO) and coplanar RapidArc (RA) were generated for each patient to meet the corresponding treatment plan criteria. These four FSRT treatment plans were divided into two groups—the homogeneous delivery group (HA-SRS NTO and coplanar RA) and the inhomogeneous delivery group (HA-ALDO and cone-based CK)—to compare for dosimetric outcomes. For homogeneous delivery, the brain V5, V12, and V24 and the mean brainstem dose were significantly lower with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. The conformity index, high and intermediate dose spillage, and gradient radius were significantly better with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. For inhomogeneous delivery, the HA-ALDO exhibited superior PTV coverage levels to the cone-based CK plans. Almost all the doses delivered to organs at risk and dose distribution metrics were significantly better with the HA-ALDO plans than with the cone-based CK plans. Good dosimetric distribution makes HA an attractive FSRT technique for the treatment of benign brain lesions.

Stereotactic radiosurgery commissioning and QA test cases-A TG-119 approach for Stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

To develop a standardized set of representative clinical treatment cases that pose a range of optimization problems for evaluating the plan quality and dosimetric accuracy within the commissioning process for linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

METHODS

Five test cases with increasing complexity were created to validate delivery accuracy in SRS commissioning similar to the approach used by AAPM TG-119 in developing a test suite for IMRT commissioning. Standardized structure sets, planning goals, and delivery requirements were specified for each case including a small sphere target, irregular target, irregular target placed off-axis, multi-target, and abutting organs-at-risk (OARs). Various VMAT field arrangements including a single arc, two coplanar arcs, full arc and vertex half arc, and four noncoplanar arcs were tested to generate clinically appropriate treatment plans.

RESULTS

The small spherical target was 1.0 cm in diameter. The irregular target was a clinical cavity (2.3 × 2.2 × 1.4 cm³) and was shifted 4.5 cm for the irregular target off-axis case. The multi-target case used the irregular target and four spherical targets representing metastases ranging 0.9 to 1.6 cm in diameter, placed up to 7.5 cm off-axis. The abutting OARs case included an acoustic neuroma and target placed near the optic nerve. All spherical targets received 24 Gy and the cavity received 18 Gy. The abutting OAR cases included a 3.74 cc lesion adjacent to the brainstem receiving 13 Gy and a 1.11 cc lesion adjacent to the optic nerve receiving 12 Gy. All plans used a single-isocenter placed at the target center or geometric center of multiple targets. Planning goals for all cases included constraints for the target and brain minus PTV, along with brainstem and optic nerve where applicable. Deliverability was assessed through ion chamber measurements, in addition to composite and per-field planar measurements on Gafchromic film and small-field diode array. A mean and SD for measured versus planned doses of 101.0% ± 2.9% was observed over the 14 ion chamber measurements. Mean and SD for gamma pass rates were 98.5% ± 2.2% and 97.1% ± 4.9% for film and diode array, respectively, for gamma criteria of 2% and 1 mm.

CONCLUSION

These cases could provide the preliminary groundwork for a novel benchmark for institutions to evaluate linac-based SRS commissioning and delivery accuracy prior to clinical implementation. The rapid widespread implementation of linac-based SRS, the complexity associated with dosimetry and delivery, and high-profile treatment deviations that have already resulted from its use, highlight the importance of such a benchmark test suite. Comprehensive dosimetric measurements from this standardized set of SRS optimization problems were used to fine-tune and understand the limitations of our SRS planning and delivery system and establish a set of baseline data for comparison with other delivery platforms.

Positioning accuracy of a single-isocenter multiple targets SRS treatment: A comparison between Varian TrueBeam CBCT and Brainlab ExacTrac

PURPOSE

This study compared the positioning accuracy between cone-beam CT (CBCT) and ExacTrac (ETX) for a single-isocenter multiple target stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) on two TrueBeam STx systems.

METHODS

A single-isocenter treatment plan was simulated on an anthropomorphic head phantom with six spherical steel ball bearings (BBs). One of the BBs was chosen to be the isocenter. The five off-isocenter targets were located at various distances from the isocenter. MV portal images were generated to evaluate the deviations between the expected and the real center of the targets after CBCT and ETX positioning, respectively.

RESULTS

The evaluation of the positioning accuracy for the isocenter target showed that CBCT and ETX positioning provided comparable, sub-millimetric results. Deviations in positioning accuracy were also calculated for all other targets, also showing comparable results for CBCT and ETX. Moreover, our study showed that the deviation between CBCT and ETX positioning were in better agreement for TBSTx1 and deviated slightly higher on TBSTx2 (maximum: 1.23 mm at S/I direction), due to a less perfect alignment between the CBCT coordinate system and the ETX coordinate system on TBSTx2 compared to TBSTx1. This study also showed a correlation between the target positioning accuracy and the distance to the isocenter.

CONCLUSION

The positioning accuracy of ETX and CBCT for targets located at isocenter and off-isocenter locations was compared on two treatment machines and found comparable. Our study highlights the importance of a proper calibration procedure, to ensure correct alignment between the CBCT, ETX and machine coordinate systems.

Dose escalation in the definite target volume

PURPOSE

To introduce the definite target volume (DTV) and evaluate dosimetric consequences of boosting dose to this region of high clinical target volume (CTV)- and low organs at risk (OAR)-probability.

METHODS

This work defines the DTV via occupancy probability and via contraction of the CTV by margin M less any planning risk volume (PRV) volumes. The equivalence to within varying occupancy probability of the two methods is established for spherical target volumes. We estimate a margin for four radiation treatment sites based on modern images guided radiation therapy-literature utilizing repeat volumetric imaging. Based on margins and patient-specific DTV targets, the ability to dose escalate the DTV including the effects of spatial uncertainty was evaluated. We simulate delivery assuming violation of the underlying spatial uncertainty of 130%.

RESULTS

Contracting the planning target volume (PTV) by M and excluding PRV volumes, the DTV ranged from 7.3 to 93.6 cc. In a brain treatment, DTV-Dmax increased to 66.8 Gy (145% of prescription isodose); in advanced lung DTV-Dmax increased to 122.2 Gy (204% of prescription isodose), in a pancreatic case DTV-Dmax was boosted up to 87.3 Gy (173% or prescription isodose), and in retroperitoneal sarcoma to 74.6 Gy (249% of prescription isodose). The high point doses were not associated with increased dose to OARs, even when considering the effects of spatial uncertainty. Simulated delivery at 130% of assumed spatial uncertainties revealed DTV-based planning can result in minor increases in OAR Dmean/Dmax of 2.7 ± 2.1 Gy/1.8 ± 2.2 Gy with duodenum Dmax > 110% of prescription isodose in the pancreatic case. These dose increases were consistent with simulation of clinical, homogenous PTV-dose distributions.

CONCLUSION

We have proposed and tested a method to deliver extremely high doses to subvolumes of target volumes in multiple treatment sites by defining a new target volume, the DTV. Based on simulated delivery, the method does not result in significant increases in dose to OARs if spatial uncertainty can be estimated.

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.

Modern Radiation Therapy Planning and Delivery

Modern radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery is a complex process that relies on advanced imaging and computing technology as well as expertise from the medical team. The process begins with simulation imaging, in which three-dimensional computed tomography images (or magnetic resonance images in some cases) are used to characterize the patient anatomy. From there, the radiation oncologist delineates the relevant target/tumor volumes and normal tissue and communicates the goals for treatment planning. The planning process attempts to generate a radiation therapy treatment plan that will deliver a therapeutic dose of radiation to the tumor while sparing nearby normal tissue.

Stereotactic radiosurgery with MLC-defined arcs: Verification of dosimetry, spatial accuracy, and end-to-end tests

Purpose

To measure dosimetric and spatial accuracy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered to targets as small as the trigeminal nerve (TN) using a standard external beam treatment planning system (TPS) and multileaf collimator‐(MLC) equipped linear accelerator without cones or other special attachments or modifications.

Methods

Dosimetric performance was assessed by comparing computed dose distributions to film measurements. Comparisons included the γ‐index, beam profiles, isodose lines, maximum dose, and spatial accuracy. Initially, single static 360° arcs of MLC‐shaped fields ranging from 1.6 × 5 to 30 × 30 mm² were planned and delivered to an in‐house built block phantom having approximate dimensions of a human head. The phantom was equipped with markings that allowed accurate setup using planar kV images. Couch walkout during multiple‐arc treatments was investigated by tracking a ball pointer, initially positioned at cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) isocenter, as the couch was rotated. Tracks were mapped with no load and a 90 kg stack of plastic plates simulating patient treatment. The dosimetric effect of walkout was assessed computationally by comparing test plans that corrected for walkout to plans that neglected walkout. The plans involved nine 160° arcs of 2.4 × 5 mm² fields applied at six different couch angles. For end‐to‐end tests that included CT simulation, target contouring, planning, and delivery, a cylindrical phantom mimicking a 3 mm lesion was constructed and irradiated with the nine‐arc regimen. The phantom, lacking markings as setup aids was positioned under CBCT guidance by registering its surface and internal structures with CTs from simulation. Radiochromic film passing through the target center was inserted parallel to the coronal and the sagittal plane for assessment of spatial and dosimetric accuracy.

Results

In the single‐arc block phantom tests computed maximum doses of all field sizes agreed with measurements within 2.4 ± 2.0%. Profile widths at 50% maximum agreed within 0.2 mm. The largest targeting error was 0.33 mm. The γ‐index (3%, 1 mm) averaged over 10 experiments was >1 in only 1% of pixels for field sizes up to 10 × 10 mm² and rose to 4.4% as field size increased to 20 × 20 mm². Table walkout was not affected by load. Walkout shifted the target up to 0.6 mm from CBCT isocenter but, according to computations shifted the dose cloud of the nine‐arc plan by only 0.16 mm. Film measurements verified the small dosimetric effect of walkout, allowing walkout to be neglected during planning and treatment. In the end‐to‐end tests average and maximum targeting errors were 0.30 ± 0.10 and 0.43 mm, respectively. Gamma analysis of coronal and sagittal dose distributions based on a 3%/0.3 mm agreement remained <1 at all pixels. To date, more than 50 functional SRS treatments using MLC‐shaped static field arcs have been delivered.

Conclusion

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be planned and delivered on a standard linac without cones or other modifications with better than 0.5 mm spatial and 5% dosimetric accuracy.

Improvements in CBCT Image Quality Using a Novel Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm: A Clinical Evaluation

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of a novel iterative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction algorithm for prostate and head and neck (HN) cancer.

Methods and Materials

A total of 10 patients with HN and 10 patients with prostate cancer were analyzed. For each patient, raw CBCT acquisition data were used to reconstruct images with a currently available algorithm (FDK_CBCT) and novel iterative algorithm (Iterative_CBCT). Quantitative contouring variation analysis was performed using structures delineated by several radiation oncologists. For prostate, observers contoured the prostate, proximal 2 cm seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum. For HN, observers contoured the brain stem, spinal canal, right-left parotid glands, and right-left submandibular glands. Observer contours were combined to form a reference consensus contour using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation method. All observer contours then were compared with the reference contour to calculate the Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, and mean contour distance (prostate contour only). Qualitative image quality analysis was performed using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (much superior image quality for Iterative_CBCT) to 5 (much inferior image quality for Iterative_CBCT).

Results

The Iterative_CBCT data sets resulted in a prostate contour Dice coefficient improvement of approximately 2.4% (P = .029). The average prostate contour Dice coefficient for the Iterative_CBCT data sets was improved for all patients, with improvements up to approximately 10% for 1 patient. The mean contour distance results indicate an approximate 15% reduction in mean contouring error for all prostate regions. For the parotid contours, Iterative_CBCT data sets resulted in a Hausdorff distance improvement of approximately 2 mm (P < .01) and an approximate 2% improvement in Dice coefficient (P = .03). The Iterative_CBCT data sets were scored as equivalent or of better image quality for 97.3% (prostate) and 90.0% (HN) of the patient data sets.

Conclusions

Observers noted an improvement in image uniformity, noise level, and overall image quality for Iterative_CBCT data sets. In addition, expert observers displayed an improved ability to consistently delineate soft tissue structures, such as the prostate and parotid glands. Thus, the novel iterative reconstruction algorithm analyzed in this study is capable of improving the visualization for prostate and HN cancer image guided radiation therapy.

Validation of MLC-based linac radiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia

This study details a validation process for linear accelerator‐based treatment of trigeminal neuralgia using HD‐MLC field collimation. Nine trigeminal neuralgia treatment plans utilizing HD‐MLC were selected for absolute dose measurement at isocenter using a commercial scintillating detector in an anthropomorphic phantom. Four plans were chosen for film dosimetry measurements in each of the three principal planes to assess spatial dose distribution agreement with the treatment planning system. Additionally, trajectory log analysis for each treatment field in the nine cases was performed to assess mechanical positioning accuracy of the MLC system during delivery. Scintillator and film measurements both revealed mean dose agreement at isocenter of better than 3% while FWHM of the 2D dose distribution in each plane showed agreement between plan and measurement within 0.2 mm. Analysis of log files revealed a maximum MLC leaf positioning error of 0.04 mm across 178 treatment fields. In conjunction with a quality‐controlled treatment delivery methodology, an appropriately commissioned treatment planning system can be used for accurate and clinically appropriate design of trigeminal neuralgia treatment plans utilizing HD‐MLC.

Evaluation of a magnetic resonance guided linear accelerator for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the systematic localization accuracy, treatment planning capability, and delivery accuracy of an integrated magnetic resonance imaging guided Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) platform for stereotactic radiosurgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The phantom for the end-to-end test comprises three different compartments: a rectangular MR/CT target phantom, a Winston-Lutz cube, and a rectangular MR/CT isocenter phantom. Hidden target tests were performed at gantry angles of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees to quantify the systematic accuracy. Five patient plans with a total of eleven lesions were used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. Single-isocenter IMRT treatment plans using 10-15 coplanar beams were generated to treat the multiple metastases.

RESULTS

The end-to-end localization accuracy of the system was 1.0 ± 0.1 mm. The conformity index, homogeneity index and gradient index of the plans were 1.26 ± 0.22, 1.22 ± 0.10, and 5.38 ± 1.44, respectively. The average absolute point dose difference between measured and calculated dose was 1.64 ± 1.90%, and the mean percentage of points passing the 3%/1 mm gamma criteria was 96.87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that excellent plan quality and delivery accuracy was achievable on the MR-Linac for treating multiple brain metastases with a single isocenter.

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.

Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets

This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source size selections (0.50 mm, 0.75 mm, 1.00 mm, 1.25 mm, and 1.50 mm). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was varied in this analysis (three DLG values were tested for each scenario). We also tested two MLC leaf designs (standard and high‐definition MLC) and two delivery types for intracranial SRS (volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and dynamic conformal arc [DCA]). Thus, a total of 10 VMAT plans and 10 DCA plans were tested for each machine type (TrueBeam [standard MLC] and Edge [high‐definition MLC]). Each plan was mapped to a solid water phantom and dose was calculated with each iteration of source size and DLG value (15 total dose calculations for each plan). To measure the dose, Gafchromic film was placed in the coronal plane of the solid water phantom at isocenter. The phantom was localized via on‐board CBCT and the plans were delivered at planned gantry, collimator, and couch angles. The planned and measured film dose was compared using Gamma (3.0%, 0.3 mm) criteria. The vendor‐recommended 1.00 mm source size was suitable for TrueBeam planning (both VMAT and DCA planning) and Edge DCA planning. However, for Edge VMAT planning, the 0.50 mm source size yielded the highest passing rates. The difference in dose calculation among the source size variations manifested primarily in two regions of the dose calculation: (1) the shoulder of the high‐dose region, and (2) for small targets (volume ≤ 0.30 cc), in the central portion of the high‐dose region. Selection of a larger than optimal source size can result in increased blurring of the shoulder for all target volume sizes tested, and can result in central axis dose discrepancies in excess of 10% for target volumes sizes ≤ 0.30 cc. Our results indicate a need for evaluation of the source size when AcurosXB is used to model intracranial SRS delivery, and our methods represent a feasible process for many clinics to perform tuning of the AcurosXB source size parameter.

Investigating the dosimetric effects of grid size on dose calculation accuracy using volumetric modulated arc therapy in spine stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Sharp dose gradients between the target and the spinal cord are critical to achieve dose constraints in spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), however the accuracy of the doses to the spinal cord at these high dose gradients is sensitive to the how the dose is sampled across the structure using a discretized isotropic calculation grid. In this study, the effect of the grid size (GS) on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) spine SRS plans was investigated.

METHODS

The Eclipse v11.0 Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) algorithm was used for dose calculation. Plan qualities of fifty treatment plans were evaluated with a GS of 2.5 (AAA's default value), 1.5 and 1mm. All plans were prescribed to the 90% isodose line in 1 fraction. Parameters used for plan comparison included the distance-to-fall-off (DTF) between the 90% and 50% isodose levels in the axial plane, planning tumor volume (PTV) coverage to 99%, 95%, 5% and 0.03cc, dose to 10% (Cord_D10%) and 0.03cc (Cord_D0.03cc) of the spinal cord sub volume. The dosimetric accuracy was evaluated based on film dosimetry percent gamma pass rate, line profile through the cord. Calculation times between different grid sizes as well as DVH algorithm differences between two treatment planning systems (Eclipse vs Velocity) were compared. Paired t-test was used to investigate the statistical significance.

RESULTS

The DTF decreased for all plans with 1mm compared to 1.5mm and 2.5mm GS (2.52±0.54mm, 2.83±0.58mm, 3.30±0.64, p<0.001). Relative to the 1mm GS, Cord_D0.03cc and Cord_D10% increased by 6.24% and 7.81% with the 1.5mm GS, and 9.80% and 13% with the 2.5mm GS. Film analysis demonstrated higher gamma pass rates for 1.5mm GS compared to 1 and 2.5mm GS (95.9%±5.4%, 94.3%±6.0%, 93.6%±5.4%, p<0.001), however 1mm GS showed better agreement in the high dose gradient near the cord. Calculation times for 1mm GS plans increased for 1.5 and 2.5mm GS (61% and 84%, p<0.001). The average difference between the two treatment planning systems was approximately 0-1.2%. A maximum difference of 5.9% occurred for Cord_D0.03cc for the 1mm GS.

CONCLUSION

Plans calculated with a 1mm grid size resulted in the most accurate representation of the dose delivered to the cord, however resulted in less uniform dose distributions in the high dose region of the PTV. The use of a 1.5mm grid size may balance accurate cord dose and PTV coverage, while also being more practical with respect to computation time.

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.