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

Surface guided radiation therapy with an innovative open-face mask and mouth bite: patient motion management in brain stereotactic radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

To guarantee treatment reproducibility and stability, immobilization devices are essential. Additionally, surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) serves as an accurate complement to frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) by aiding patient positioning and real-time monitoring, especially when non-coplanar fields are in use. At our institute, we have developed a surface-guided SRS (SG-SRS) workflow that incorporates our innovative open-face mask (OM) and mouth bite (MB) to guarantee a precise and accurate dose delivery.

METHODS

This study included 40 patients, and all patients were divided into closed mask (CM) and open-face mask (OM) groups according to different positioning flow. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed, and the registration results were recorded before and after the treatment. Then Bland-Altman method was used to analyze the consistency of AlignRT-guided positioning errors and CBCT scanning results in the OM group. The error changes between 31 fractions in one patient were recorded to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring during treatment.

RESULTS

The median of translation error between stages of the AlignRT positioning process was (0.03-0.07) cm, and the median of rotation error was (0.20-0.40)°, which were significantly better than those of the Fraxion positioning process (0.09-0.11) cm and (0.60-0.75)°. The mean bias values between the AlignRT guided positioning errors and CBCT were 0.01 cm, - 0.07 cm, 0.03 cm, - 0.30°, - 0.08° and 0.00°. The 31 inter-fractional errors of a single patient monitored by SGRT were within 0.10 cm and 0.50°.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the SGRT with an innovative open-face mask and mouth bite device could achieve precision positioning accuracy and stability, and the accuracy of the AlignRT system exhibits excellent constancy with the CBCT gold standard. The non-coplanar radiation field monitoring can provide reliable support for motion management in fractional treatment.

Setup Uncertainty of Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients Receiving Proton Therapy: A Prospective Study

This study quantifies setup uncertainty in brain tumor patients who received image-guided proton therapy. Patients analyzed include 165 children, adolescents, and young adults (median age at radiotherapy: 9 years (range: 10 months to 24 years); 80 anesthetized and 85 awake) enrolled in a single-institution prospective study from 2020 to 2023. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed daily to calculate and correct manual setup errors, once per course after setup correction to measure residual errors, and weekly after treatments to assess intrafractional motion. Orthogonal radiographs were acquired consecutively with CBCT for paired comparisons of 40 patients. Translational and rotational errors were converted from 6 degrees of freedom to a scalar by a statistical approach that considers the distance from the target to the isocenter. The 95th percentile of setup uncertainty was reduced by daily CBCT from 10 mm (manual positioning) to 1-1.5 mm (after correction) and increased to 2 mm by the end of fractional treatment. A larger variation existed between the roll corrections reported by radiographs vs. CBCT than for pitch and yaw, while there was no statistically significant difference in translational variation. A quantile mixed regression model showed that the 95th percentile of intrafractional motion was 0.40 mm lower for anesthetized patients (p=0.0016). Considering additional uncertainty in radiation-imaging isocentricity, the commonly used total plan robustness of 3 mm against positional uncertainty would be appropriate for our study cohort.

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.

A Framework for ExacTrac Dynamic Commissioning for Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy

This paper aims to provide guidance and a framework for commissioning tests and tolerances for the ExacTrac Dynamic image-guided and surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system. ExacTrac Dynamic includes a stereoscopic X-ray system, a structured light projector, stereoscopic cameras, thermal camera for SGRT, and has the capability to track breath holds and internal markers. The system provides fast and accurate image guidance and intrafraction guidance for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. ExacTrac Dynamic was commissioned on a recently installed Elekta Versa HD. Commissioning tests are described including safety, isocenter calibration, dosimetry, image quality, data transfer, SGRT stability, SGRT localization, gating, fusion, implanted markers, breath hold, and end-to-end testing. Custom phantom designs have been implemented for assessment of the deep inspiration breath-hold workflow, the implanted markers workflow, and for gating tests where remote-controlled movement of a phantom is required. Commissioning tests were all found to be in tolerance, with maximum translational and rotational deviations in SGRT of 0.3 mm and 0.4°, respectively, and X-ray image fusion reproducibility standard deviation of 0.08 mm. Tolerances were based on published documents and upon the performance characteristics of the system as specified by the vendor. The unique configuration of ExacTrac Dynamic requires the end user to design commissioning tests that validate the system for use in the clinical implementation adopted in the department. As there are multiple customizable workflows available, tests should be designed around these workflows, and can be ongoing as workflows are progressively introduced into departmental procedures.

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.

Intrafraction stability using full head mask for brain stereotactic radiotherapy

Purpose

We investigated the immobilization accuracy of a new type of thermoplastic mask—the Double Shell Positioning System (DSPS)—in terms of geometry and dose delivery.

Methods

Thirty‐one consecutive patients with 1–5 brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were selected and divided into two groups. Patients were divided into two groups. One group of patients was immobilized by the DSPS (n = 9). Another group of patients was immobilized by a combination of the DSPS and a mouthpiece (n = 22). Patient repositioning was performed with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and six‐degree of freedom couch. Additionally, CBCT images were acquired before and after treatment. Registration errors were analyzed with off‐line review. The inter‐ and intrafractional setup errors, and planning target volume (PTV) margin were also calculated. Delivered doses were calculated by shifting the isocenter according to inter‐ and intrafractional setup errors. Dose differences of GTV D_99% were compared between planned and delivered doses against the modified PTV margin of 1 mm.

Results

Interfractional setup errors associated with the mouthpiece group were significantly smaller than the translation errors in another group (p = 0.03). Intrafractional setup errors for the two groups were almost the same in all directions. PTV margins were 0.89 mm, 0.75 mm, and 0.90 mm for the DSPS combined with the mouthpiece in lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Similarly, PTV margins were 1.20 mm, 0.72 mm, and 1.37 mm for the DSPS in the lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Dose differences between planned and delivered doses were small enough to be within 1% for both groups.

Conclusions

The geometric and dosimetric assessments revealed that the DSPS provides sufficient immobilization accuracy. Higher accuracy can be expected when the immobilization is combined with the use of a mouthpiece.

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.

Evaluation of the setup discrepancy between 6D ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy

The objective of this study was to analyze the difference in residual setup errors between 6D ExacTrac and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image-guided systems in spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We investigated 76 patients with spinal tumors who received SBRT using Novalis Tx at our institution between January 2013 and September 2020. A Vac-lok (EZ-FIX®, Arlico Medical Company, South Korea) fixture and an assistive device, based on the region involved, were used to immobilize patients and to increase the inter-fractional setup reproducibility. The difference in the root mean square (RMS) between the 6D ExacTrac and 3D CBCT was -0.75 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.16 mm, and -0.03°; the RMS value was 1.31 mm, 1.06 mm, 0.87 mm, and 0.64°; and the standard deviation was 0.80 mm, 0.72 mm, 0.62 mm, and 0.44° for lateral, longitudinal, vertical, and yaw directions, respectively. The difference in the average RMS between ExacTrac and CBCT was <1.03 mm in the translation direction and <0.47° in the rotational direction; the results were statistically significant in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, but not in the yaw direction. Thus, it is necessary to verify the ExacTrac image according to the CBCT image.

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.

A Simulated Dosimetric Study of Contribution to Radiotherapy Accuracy by Fractional Image Guidance Protocol of Halcyon System

PURPOSE

Frequency of conventional kV-image guidance is sometimes sacrificed to reduce concomitant risk, leaving deviations of unguided fractions unknown. MV-imaging and treatment dose can be collectively optimized on Halcyon, where fractional MVCBCT provides complete anatomic records for course-wide dose reconstruction. By retrospective dose accumulation, this work simulated the impact of imaging frequency on patient treatment dose on the platform of Halcyon.

METHODS

Four hundred and sixteen MVCBCT image sets from 16 patients of various tumor sites treated with radiotherapy on Halcyon were retrospectively selected. After applying the image-guided couch shifts of the clinical records, deformable image registration was performed using Velocity software, to deform the planning CTs to the corresponding MVCBCTs, generating pseudo CTs representing the actual anatomies on the treatment day. Fractional treatment dose was reconstructed on pseudo CTs for accumulation, representing the actual patient dose (Ddaily). To simulate weekly image guidance, fractional dose was reconstructed and accumulated by incorporating 1 CBCT-guided corrections and 4 laser-guided setups of each week (Dweekly). Limited by partially imaged volumes and different organs-at-risk of various sites, only target dose-volume parameters were evaluated across all patients.

RESULTS

GTV_D98%, CTV_D98%, PTV_D90%, PTV_D95%, PGTV_D90%, and PGTV_D95% were evaluated, where Dx% means the minimal dose received by x% volume. Pairwise comparisons were made between plan dose and Ddaily, Ddaily and Dweekly respectively. PGTV_D95% of accumulated Dweekly were significantly lower than those of accumulated Ddaily by up to 32.90% of prescription dose, suggesting that weekly-guidance may result in unacceptable under dose to the target. The broad distribution of fractional differences between Ddaily and Dweekly suggested unreliable patient positioning based on aligning surface markers to laser beams, as a popular approach broadly used on conventional Linac systems. Slight target under-dose was observed on daily reconstructed results compared with planned dose, which provided quantitative data to guide clinical decisions such as the necessity of adaptive radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Fractional image guided radiotherapy on Halcyon provides more reliable treatment accuracy than using sacrificed imaging frequency, which also provides complete anatomic records for deformable dose reconstruction supporting more informed clinical decisions.

Maximum distance in single-isocenter technique of stereotactic radiosurgery with rotational error using margin-based analysis

Through geometrical simulation, we evaluated the effect of rotational error in patient setup on geometrical coverage and calculated the maximum distance between the isocenter and target, where the clinical PTV margin secures geometrical coverage with a single-isocenter technique. We used simulated spherical GTVs with diameters of 1.0 (GTV 1), 1.5 (GTV 2), 2.0 (GTV 3), and 3.0 cm (GTV 4). The location of the target center was set such that the distance between the target and isocenter ranged from 0 to 15 cm. We created geometrical coverage vectors so that each target was entirely covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The vectors of the target positions were simultaneously rotated within a range of 0°-2.0° around the x-, y-, and z-axes. For each rotational error, the reduction in geometrical coverage of the targets was calculated and compared with that obtained for a rotational error of 0°. The tolerance value of the geometrical coverage reduction was defined as 5% of the GTV. The maximum distance that satisfied the 5% tolerance value for different values of rotational error at a clinical PTV margin of 0.1 cm was calculated. When the rotational errors were 0.5° for a 0.1 cm PTV margin, the maximum distances were as follows: GTV 1: 7.6 cm; GTV 2: 10.9 cm; GTV 3: 14.3 cm; and GTV 4: 21.4 cm. It might be advisable to exclude targets that are > 7.6 cm away from the isocenter with a single-isocenter technique to satisfy the tolerance value for all GTVs.

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.

The Reintroduction of Radiotherapy Into the Integrated Management of Kidney Cancer

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been increasing, with a moderate subgroup of individuals who later develop metastatic disease. Historically, metastatic RCC has been managed with systemic therapy because RCC was believed to be radioresistant. Local therapies, such as stereotactic body radiation therapy, also known as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, which utilize focused high-dose-rate radiation delivered over a limited number of treatments, have been successful in controlling local disease and, in some cases, extending survival in patients with intracranial and extracranial metastatic RCC. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is highly effective in treating intact disease when patients are not surgical candidates. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is well tolerated when used in conjunction with systemic therapy such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. These successes have prompted investigators to evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy in novel settings such as neoadjuvant treatment of advanced RCC with tumor thrombus and oligometastatic/oligoprogressive disease states.

Recent advanced in Surface Guided Radiation Therapy

The growing acceptance and recognition of Surface Guided Radiation Therapy (SGRT) as a promising imaging technique has supported its recent spread in a large number of radiation oncology facilities. Although this technology is not new, many aspects of it have only recently been exploited. This review focuses on the latest SGRT developments, both in the field of general clinical applications and special techniques.SGRT has a wide range of applications, including patient positioning with real-time feedback, patient monitoring throughout the treatment fraction, and motion management (as beam-gating in free-breathing or deep-inspiration breath-hold). Special radiotherapy modalities such as accelerated partial breast irradiation, particle radiotherapy, and pediatrics are the most recent SGRT developments.The fact that SGRT is nowadays used at various body sites has resulted in the need to adapt SGRT workflows to each body site. Current SGRT applications range from traditional breast irradiation, to thoracic, abdominal, or pelvic tumor sites, and include intracranial localizations.Following the latest SGRT applications and their specifications/requirements, a stricter quality assurance program needs to be ensured. Recent publications highlight the need to adapt quality assurance to the radiotherapy equipment type, SGRT technology, anatomic treatment sites, and clinical workflows, which results in a complex and extensive set of tests.Moreover, this review gives an outlook on the leading research trends. In particular, the potential to use deformable surfaces as motion surrogates, to use SGRT to detect anatomical variations along the treatment course, and to help in the establishment of personalized patient treatment (optimized margins and motion management strategies) are increasingly important research topics. SGRT is also emerging in the field of patient safety and integrates measures to reduce common radiotherapeutic risk events (e.g. facial and treatment accessories recognition).This review covers the latest clinical practices of SGRT and provides an outlook on potential applications of this imaging technique. It is intended to provide guidance for new users during the implementation, while triggering experienced users to further explore SGRT applications.

Prospective assessment of inter- or intra-fractional variation according to body weight or volume change in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy

This study aimed to prospectively investigate the association between body weight (ΔBW) or body volume variations (ΔBV) and inter- or intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) or Δ(intra)) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiotherapy (RT). This study enrolled patients with HNC from December 2015 to December 2017. All patients underwent curative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) either as definitive or adjuvant treatment. Six-dimensional inter- and intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) and Δ(intra)) were obtained with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) system. BV was measured 7.5 cm cranio-caudally from the centre using cone beam computed tomography. The BW, BV, and Δ(inter) were calculated based on the value obtained on the first treatment day after each simulation. Both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were considered in calculating the optimal margins for planning target volume (PTV), which was calculated using van Herk’s formula. In total, 678 fractions with 39 simulations in 22 patients were analysed. The average ΔBW and ΔBV was -0.43±1.90 kg (range, -7.3 to 5.0) and -24.34±69.0 cc (range, -247.15 to 214.88), respectively. In correlation analysis, Δ(intra) was more associated with ΔBW or ΔBV than Δ(inter). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed Δ(intra) could differentiate ΔBW from ΔBV, while Δ(inter) could not. The optimal margins for PTV considering both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were 3.70 mm, 4.52 mm, and 5.12 mm for the right-left, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. In conclusion, the PTV margin of 6 mm for anterior-posterior direction and 5 mm for the other directions were needed. ΔBW or ΔBV correlated with Δ(intra) rather than Δ(inter). Therefore, ΔBW or ΔBV should be assessed for accurate IMRT in patients with HNC.

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.

Stereoscopic X-ray imaging, cone beam CT, and couch positioning in stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors: preliminary results from a cross-modality pilot installation

Background

To assess the accuracy and precision of a fully integrated pilot installation of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and kV-CBCT for automatic couch positioning in stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors. Positioning errors as detected by stereoscopic X-ray imaging are compared to those by kV-CBCT (i.e. the accuracy of the new method is verified by the established method), and repeated X-ray images are compared (i.e. the precision of new method is determined intra-modally).

Methods

Preliminary results are reported from a study with 32 patients with intracranial tumors. Patients were treated with stereotactic radiotherapy guided by stereoscopic X-ray imaging and kV-CBCT. Patient positioning was automatically corrected by a robotic couch. Cross-modal discrepancies in position detection were measured (N = 42). Intra-modal improvements after correction and re-verification by stereoscopic X-ray imaging were measured (N = 70). The accuracy and precision of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and the accuracy and precision of CBCT were confirmed in phantom measurements (N = 12 shifts of a ball bearing phantom, N = 24 shifts of a head phantom).

Results

After correction based on stereoscopic X-ray imaging 95% of residual mean errors were below 0.4, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.7 mm (lateral, longitudinal, vertical, radial, respectively). Stereoscopic X-ray imaging and CBCT were in close agreement with an average discrepancy of 0.1, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.8 mm, respectively. 95% of discrepancies were below 0.8, 1.2, 1.0, and 1.4 mm, respectively. After correction and re-verification by stereoscopic X-ray imaging, the remaining intra-modal residual error was consistent with zero (p = 0.31, p = 0.48, p = 0.81 in lateral, longitudinal, and vertical direction; p-values from two-tailed t-test). The inherent technical accuracy and precision of stereoscopic X-ray imaging and the accuracy and precision of CBCT were found to be of the order of 0.1 mm in controlled phantom settings.

Conclusions

In a routine clinical setting, both stereoscopic X-ray imaging and CBCT were able to reduce positioning errors by an order of magnitude. The end-to-end precision of the system, measured from the discrepancy (mean) between ExacTrac and CBCT, in a clinical setting seems to be about 0.8 mm radially, including couch positioning. The precision (measured from repeatability of ExacTrac, intra-modal) was found to be about 0.7 mm radially in a clinical setting.