Are pitch and roll compensations required in all pathologies? A data analysis of 2945 fractions

Robustness of Breast Margins with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy without a Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Couch: A Dosimetric Evaluation

In our hospital, a TrueBeam linear accelerator and the PerfectPitch 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) couch (Varian), with 7 mm margins, are used for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of breast cancer (BC). This study tested whether a 3-degrees-of-freedom (3-DOF) couch, i.e., without rotation compensation (such as the Halcyon couch), affected dose metrics. A total of 446 daily extended cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data of 20 patients who received VMAT for BC were used to recalculate the treatment plans with the session registration (6-DOF) and a simulated matching with 3-DOF. The initial plan provided significantly better coverage for internal mammary chain and clavicular lymph node clinical target volumes (CTVs) than the 6-DOF and 3-DOF CBCT plans. The volumes receiving 110% of the prescribed dose (V110%) were increased for all CTVs with the 6-DOF and 3-DOF CBCT plans, but the difference was significant only for the breast/chest wall CTV (p < 0.05; paired samples t-test). Protection of the heart and lungs was comparable among plans. The dose volume histograms based on the 6-DOF and 3-DOF data were similar for CTVs and organs at risk. Therefore, with a 7 mm margin, VMAT and a 3-DOF couch can be used for BC treatment without any compromise in delivery accuracy.

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.

A Probability-Based Investigation on the Setup Robustness of Pencil-beam Proton Radiation Therapy for Skull-Base Meningioma

Introduction

The intracranial skull-base meningioma is in proximity to multiple critical organs and heterogeneous tissues. Steep dose gradients often result from avoiding critical organs in proton treatment plans. Dose uncertainties arising from setup errors under image-guided radiation therapy are worthy of evaluation.

Patients and Methods

Fourteen patients with skull-base meningioma were retrospectively identified and planned with proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) single-field uniform dose (SFUD) and multifield optimization (MFO) techniques. The setup uncertainties were assigned a probability model on the basis of prior published data. The impact on the dose distribution from nominal 1-mm and large, less probable setup errors, as well as the cumulative effect, was analyzed. The robustness of SFUD and MFO planning techniques in these scenarios was discussed.

Results

The target coverage was reduced and the plan dose hot spot increased by all setup uncertainty scenarios regardless of the planning techniques. For 1 mm nominal shifts, the deviations in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage D99% was -11 ± 52 cGy and -45 ± 147 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. The setup uncertainties affected the organ at risk (OAR) dose both positively and negatively. The statistical average of the setup uncertainties had <100 cGy impact on the plan qualities for all patients. The cumulative deviations in CTV D95% were 1 ± 34 cGy and -7 ± 18 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans.

Conclusion

It is important to understand the impact of setup uncertainties on skull-base meningioma, as the tumor target has complex shape and is in proximity to multiple critical organs. Our work evaluated the setup uncertainty based on its probability distribution and evaluated the dosimetric consequences. In general, the SFUD plans demonstrated more robustness than the MFO plans in target coverages and brainstem dose. The probability-weighted overall effect on the dose distribution is small compared to the dosimetric shift during single fraction.

Critical Re-Evaluation of a Failure Mode Effect Analysis in a Radiation Therapy Department After 10 Years

PURPOSE

Failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) is a proactive methodology that allows one to analyze a process, regardless of whether an adverse event occurs. In our radiation therapy (RT) department, a first FMEA was performed in 2009. In this paper we critically re-evaluate the RT process after 10 years and present it in terms of a lesson learned.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A working group (WG), led by a qualified clinical risk engineer, which included radiation oncologists, physicists, a radiation therapist, and a nurse, evaluated the possible failure modes (FMs) of the RT process. For each FM, the estimated frequency of occurrence (O, range 1-4), the expected severity of the damage (S, range 1-5), and the detectability lack (D, range 1-4) were scored. A risk priority number (RPN) was obtained as RPN = OxSxD. The data were compared with the 2009 edition.

RESULTS

In the 2020 analysis, 67 FMs were identified (27 in the 2009 series). The absolute risk values of the previous 3 highest FMs were generally reduced. The patient identification risk (highest value in the 2009 analysis) was reduced from 48.0 to 6.9, becoming the 51st RPN score, thanks to a patient barcode recognition within the bunker. The 2020 highest risk values regarded: (i-2020) the patient's inadequate recollection and reporting of his/her medical history (ie, anamnesis) during the first medical examination and (ii-2020) the incorrect interpretation of tumor and normal tissue in computed tomography images. The WG proposed corrective actions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single institution experience, the 10-year FMEA analysis showed a reduction in the previous higher RPN values thanks to the corrective actions taken. The new FMs and subsequent RPNs reveal the need for a continuous iterative improvement process.

Optimization based trajectory planning for real-time 6DoF robotic patient motion compensation systems

Purpose

Robotic stabilization of a therapeutic radiation beam with respect to a dynamically moving tumor target can be accomplished either by moving the radiation source, the patient, or both. As the treatment beam is on during this process, the primary goal is to minimize exposure of normal tissue to radiation as much as possible when moving the target back to the desired position. Due to the complex mechanical structure of 6 degree-of-freedom (6DoF) robots, it is not intuitive as to what 6 dimensional (6D) correction trajectory is optimal in achieving such a goal. With proportional-integrative-derivative (PID) and other controls, the potential exists that the controller may generate a trajectory that is highly curved, slow, or suboptimal in that it leads to unnecessary exposure of healthy tissue to radiation. This work investigates a novel feedback planning method that takes into account a robot’s mechanical joint structure, patient safety tolerances, and other system constraints, and performs real-time optimization to search the entire 6D trajectory space in each time cycle so it can respond with an optimal 6D correction trajectory.

Methods

Computer simulations were created for two 6DoF robotic patient support systems: a Stewart-Gough platform for moving a patient’s head in frameless maskless stereotactic radiosurgery, and a linear accelerator treatment table for moving a patient in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Motion planning was formulated as an optimization problem and solved at real-time speeds using the L-BFGS algorithm. Three planning methods were investigated, moving the platform as fast as possible (platform-D), moving the target along a straight-line (target-S), and moving the target based on the fastest descent of position error (target-D). Both synthetic motion and prior recorded human motion were used as input data and output results were analyzed.

Results

For randomly generated 6D step-like and sinusoidal synthetic input motion, target-D planning demonstrated the smallest net trajectory error in all cases. On average, optimal planning was found to have a 45% smaller target trajectory error than platform-D control, and a 44% smaller target trajectory error than target-S planning. For patient head motion compensation, only target-D planning was able to maintain a ≤0.5mm and ≤0.5deg clinical tolerance objective for 100% of the treatment time. For prostate motion, both target-S planning and target-D planning outperformed platform-D control.

Conclusions

A general 6D target trajectory optimization framework for robotic patient motion compensation systems was investigated. The method was found to be flexible as it allows control over various performance requirements such as mechanical limits, velocities, acceleration, or other system control objectives.

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.

An electromechanical, patient positioning system for head and neck radiotherapy

In cancer treatment with radiation, accurate patient setup is critical for proper dose delivery. Improper arrangement can lead to disease recurrence, permanent organ damage, or lack of disease control. While current immobilization equipment often helps for patient positioning, manual adjustment is required, involving iterative, time-consuming steps. Here, we present an electromechanical robotic system for improving patient setup in radiotherapy, specifically targeting head and neck cancer. This positioning system offers six degrees of freedom for a variety of applications in radiation oncology. An analytical calculation of inverse kinematics serves as fundamental criteria to design the system. Computational mechanical modeling and experimental study of radiotherapy compatibility and x-ray-based imaging demonstrates the device feasibility and reliability to be used in radiotherapy. An absolute positioning accuracy test in a clinical treatment room supports the clinical feasibility of the system.