Appropriate margin for planning target volume for breast radiotherapy during deep inspiration breath-hold by variance component analysis

New patient setup procedure using surface-guided imaging to reduce body touch and skin marks in whole-breast irradiation during the COVID-19 pandemic

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new patient-setup procedure using surface-guided imaging during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for left-sided whole-breast irradiation with deep inspiration breath-hold. Two setup procedures were compared regarding patient positioning accuracy for the first 22 patients. The first was a traditional setup (T-setup) procedure that used a surface-guided system after patient setup with traditional skin marks and lasers. The second procedure involved a new setup (N-setup) that used only a surface-guided system. The positioning accuracy of the remaining 23 patients was assessed using a setup that combined marker reduction and the N-setup procedure. No significant difference was observed in positioning accuracy between the two setups. The positioning accuracy of the marker-reduction setup was within 3 mm in all directions. The N-setup procedure may be a useful strategy for preventing infection during or after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation of internal margins for prostate for step and shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using different margin formulas

PURPOSE

This feasibility study evaluated the intra-fractional prostate motion using an ultrasound image-guided system during step and shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SS-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Moreover, the internal margins (IMs) using different margin formulas were calculated.

METHODS

Fourteen consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent SS-IMRT (n = 5) or VMAT (n = 9) between March 2019 and April 2020 were considered. The intra-fractional prostate motion was observed in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and left-right (LR) directions. The displacement of the prostate was defined as the displacement from the initial position at the scanning start time, which was evaluated using the mean ± standard deviation (SD). IMs were calculated using the van Herk and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) formulas for SS-IMRT and VMAT.

RESULTS

For SS-IMRT, the maximum displacements of the prostate motion were 0.17 ± 0.18, 0.56 ± 0.86, and 0.18 ± 0.59 mm in the SI, AP, and LR directions, respectively. For VMAT, the maximum displacements of the prostate motion were 0.19 ± 0.64, 0.22 ± 0.35, and 0.14 ± 0.37 mm in the SI, AP, and LR directions, respectively. The IMs obtained for SS-IMRT and VMAT were within 2.3 mm and 1.2 mm using the van Herk formula and within 1.2 mm and 0.8 mm using the REML formula.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study confirmed that intra-fractional prostate motion was observed with SS-IMRT and VMAT using different margin formulas. The IMs should be determined according to each irradiation technique using the REML margin.

Accuracy of patient setup positioning using surface‐guided radiotherapy with deformable registration in cases of surface deformation

The Catalyst™ HD (C‐RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden) is surface‐guided radiotherapy (SGRT) equipment that adopts a deformable model. The challenge in applying the SGRT system is accurately correcting the setup error using a deformable model when the body of the patient is deformed. This study evaluated the effect of breast deformation on the accuracy of the setup correction of the SGRT system. Physical breast phantoms were used to investigate the relationship between the mean deviation setup error obtained from the SGRT system and the breast deformation. Physical breast phantoms were used to simulate extension and shrinkage deformation (−30 to 30 mm) by changing breast pieces. Three‐dimensional (3D) Slicer software was used to evaluate the deformation. The maximum deformations in X, Y, and Z directions were obtained as the differences between the original and deformed breasts. We collected the mean deviation setup error from the SGRT system by replacing the original breast part with the deformed breast part. The mean absolute difference of lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll, and yaw, between the rigid and deformable registrations was 2.4 ± 1.7 mm, 1.3 ± 1.2 mm, 6.4 ± 5.2 mm, 2.5° ± 2.5°, 2.2° ± 2.4°, and 1.0° ± 1.0°, respectively. Deformation in the Y direction had the best correlation with the mean deviation translation error (R = 0.949) and rotation error (R = 0.832). As the magnitude of breast deformation increased, both mean deviation setup errors increased, and there was greater error in translation than in rotation. Large deformation of the breast surface affects the setup correction. Deformation in the Y direction most affects translation and rotation errors.

Does the protocol-required uniform margin around the CTV adequately account for setup inaccuracies in whole breast irradiation?

Purpose

To use cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging to determine the impacts of patient characteristics on the magnitude of geometric setup errors and obtain patient-specific planning target volume (PTV) margins from the correlated patient characteristics in whole breast irradiation (WBI).

Methods

Between January 2019 and December 2019, a total of 97 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery, followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy in WBI, were scanned with pre-treatment CBCT for the first three treatment fractions and weekly for the subsequent fractions. Setup errors in the left–right (LR), superior–inferior (SI) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions were recorded and analyzed with patient characteristics—including age, tumor location, body mass index (BMI), chest circumference (CC) and breast volume (BV)—to examine the predictors for setup errors and obtain specific PTV margins.

Results

A total of 679 CBCT images from 97 patients were acquired for analysis. The mean setup errors for the whole group were 2.32 ± 1.21 mm, 3.71 ± 2.21 mm and 2.75 ± 1.56 mm in the LR, SI and AP directions, respectively. Patients’ BMI, CC and BV were moderately associated with setup errors, especially in the SI directions (R = 0.40, 0.43 and 0.22, respectively). Setup errors in the SI directions for patients with BMI > 23.8 kg/m², CC > 89 cm and BV > 657 cm³ were 4.56 ± 2.59 mm, 4.77 ± 2.42 mm and 4.30 ± 2.43 mm, respectively, which were significantly greater than those of patients with BMI ≤ 23.8 kg/m², CC ≤ 89 cm and BV ≤ 657 cm³ (P < 0.05). Correspondingly, the calculated PTV margins in patients with BMI > 23.8 kg/m², CC > 89 cm and BV > 657 cm³ were 4.25/7.95/4.93 mm, 4.37/7.66/5.24 mm and 4.22/7.54/5.29 mm in the LR/SI/AP directions, respectively, compared with 3.64/4.64/5.09 mm, 3.31/4.50/4.82 mm and 3.29/5.74/4.73 mm for BMI ≤ 23.8 kg/m², CC ≤ 89 cm and BV ≤ 657 cm³, respectively.

Conclusions

The magnitude of geometric setup errors was moderately correlated with BMI, CC and BV. It was recommended to set patient-specific PTV margins according to patient characteristics in the absence of daily image-guided treatment setup.