Set-up errors in head and neck cancer treated with IMRT technique assessed by cone-beam computed tomography: a feasible protocol

Modelling systematic anatomical uncertainties of head and neck cancer patients during fractionated radiotherapy treatment

Objective.Head and neck cancer patients experience systematic as well as random day to day anatomical changes during fractionated radiotherapy treatment. Modelling the expected systematic anatomical changes could aid in creating treatment plans which are more robust against such changes.Approach.Inter- patient correspondence aligned all patients to a model space. Intra- patient correspondence between each planning CT scan and on treatment cone beam CT scans was obtained using diffeomorphic deformable image registration. The stationary velocity fields were then used to develop B-Spline based patient specific (SM) and population average (AM) models. The models were evaluated geometrically and dosimetrically. A leave-one-out method was used to compare the training and testing accuracy of the models.Main results.Both SMs and AMs were able to capture systematic changes. The average surface distance between the registration propagated contours and the contours generated by the SM was less than 2 mm, showing that the SM are able to capture the anatomical changes which a patient experiences during the course of radiotherapy. The testing accuracy was lower than the training accuracy of the SM, suggesting that the model overfits to the limited data available and therefore, also captures some of the random day to day changes. For most patients the AMs were a better estimate of the anatomical changes than assuming there were no changes, but the AMs could not capture the variability in the anatomical changes seen in all patients. No difference was seen in the training and testing accuracy of the AMs. These observations were highlighted in both the geometric and dosimetric evaluations and comparisons.Significance.In this work, a SM and AM are presented which are able to capture the systematic anatomical changes of some head and neck cancer patients over the course of radiotherapy treatment. The AM is able to capture the overall trend of the population, but there is large patient variability which highlights the need for more complex, capable population models.

Unmasking anxiety: a head-to-head comparison of open and closed masks in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

Background

Facemasks accurately immobilise patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). However, such masks are associated with treatment related distress, a prognostic factor for poorer survival. Open masks offer increased comfort and patient satisfaction. We investigated whether open masks could immobilise patients without affecting treatment accuracy.

Materials and methods

Over an 18-month period, all HNC RT patients with anxiety were offered open masks. Once 30 patients had completed treatment, set-up data was compared to patients in closed masks. The mean displacement and one-dimensional standard deviations (SD) of the mean, systematic and random set-up errors were calculated for translational directions: anterior-posterior (x), superior-inferior (y), medial-lateral (z). The mean and SD of the mean was calculated for rotational displacements. Mann-Whitney U was used to determine any significant differences between set-up data.

Results

Sixty patients were included (30 open & 30 closed masks). There was no statistically significant difference found in the x (p = 0.701), y (p = 0.246) or z (p = 0.535) direction for the SD of the mean displacements between both masks. No statistically significant difference was found in the SD of means for rotational displacements. The calculated planning target volume (PTV) margin requirements were minimally less for the closed masks 3.5, 2.6, and 2.7 mm (x, y, z, respectively) versus 4.2, 3.2, and 3.7 mm, respectively, for open masks.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that open masks maintain accuracy at levels comparable to closed masks in patients with anxiety. The minor difference in the calculated PTV margin could be rectified with daily on-line imaging or surface guided imaging.

Robustness analysis of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancer

Background and purpose

Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) has been shown to improve healthy tissue sparing compared to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). This study aimed to assess and compare the robustness of DTRT and VMAT treatment-plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer to patient-setup (PS) and machine-positioning uncertainties.

Materials and methods

The robustness of DTRT and VMAT plans previously created for 46 H&N cases, prescribed 50-70 Gy to 95 % of the planning-target-volume, was assessed. For this purpose, dose distributions were recalculated using Monte Carlo, including uncertainties in PS (translation and rotation) and machine-positioning (gantry-, table-, collimator-rotation and multi-leaf collimator (MLC)). Plan robustness was evaluated by the uncertainties' impact on normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for xerostomia and dysphagia and on dose-volume endpoints. Differences between DTRT and VMAT plan robustness were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test (α  = 5 %).

Results

Average NTCP for moderate-to-severe xerostomia and grade ≥ II dysphagia was lower for DTRT than VMAT in the nominal scenario (0.5 %, p = 0.01; 2.1 %, p < 0.01) and for all investigated uncertainties, except MLC positioning, where the difference was not significant. Average differences compared to the nominal scenario were ≤ 3.5 Gy for rotational PS (≤ 3°) and machine-positioning (≤ 2°) uncertainties, <7 Gy for translational PS uncertainties (≤ 5 mm) and < 20 Gy for MLC-positioning uncertainties (≤ 5 mm).

Conclusions

DTRT and VMAT plan robustness to the investigated uncertainties depended on uncertainty direction and location of the structure-of-interest to the target. NTCP remained on average lower for DTRT than VMAT even when considering uncertainties.

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.

Target movement according to cervical lymph node level in head and neck cancer and its clinical significance

PURPOSE

To evaluate set-up error for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients according to each neck lymph node (LN) level. And clinical factors affecting set-up error were analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Reference points (RP1, RP2, RP3, and RP4) representing neck LN levels I to IV were designated. These RP were contoured on simulation computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT of 89 HNC patients with the same standard. After image registration was performed, movement of each RP was measured. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze clinical factors related to measured movements.

RESULTS

The mean value of deviation of all axes was 1.6 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.8 mm, and 1.5 mm for RP1, RP2, RP3, and RP4, respectively. Deviation was over 3 mm in 24 patients. Movement of more than 3 mm was observed only in RP1 and RP3. In RP1, it was related to bite block use. Movement exceeding 3 mm was most frequently observed in RP3. Primary tumor and metastatic LN volume change were clinical factors related to the RP3 movement.

CONCLUSION

Planning target volume margin of 4 mm for neck LN level I, 3 mm for neck LN level II, 5 mm for neck LN level III, and 3 mm for neck LN level IV was required to include all movements of each LN level. In patients using bite block, changes in primary tumor volume, and metastatic LN volume were related to significant movement.

Impact of the gradient in gantry-table rotation on dynamic trajectory radiotherapy plan quality

BACKGROUND

To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted.

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time.

METHODS

The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path (G m a x ${G}_{max}$ ) between two adjacent control points (G = | Δ table angle / Δ gantry angle | $G = | \Delta {{\mathrm{table\ angle}}/\Delta {\mathrm{gantry\ angle}}} |$ ) and maximum absolute change of G (Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ ). Four DTRT plans are created with different maximum G&∆G:G m a x ${G}_{max}$ &Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$  = 0.5&0.125 (DTRT-1), 1&0.125 (DTRT-2), 3&0.125 (DTRT-3) and 3&1‍(DTRT-4), including 3-4 dynamic trajectories, for three clinically motivated cases in the head and neck and brain region (A, B, and C). A reference VMAT plan for each case is created. For all plans, plan quality is assessed and compared. Dosimetric plan quality is evaluated by target coverage, conformity, and OAR sparing. Dosimetric robustness is evaluated against systematic and random patient-setup uncertainties between± 3 mm $ \pm 3\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, and machine uncertainties between± 4 ∘ $ \pm 4^\circ \ $ in the dynamically rotating machine components (gantry, table, collimator rotation). Delivery time is recorded. Deliverability and delivery accuracy on a TrueBeam are assessed by logfile analysis for all plans and additionally verified by film measurements for one case. All dose calculations are Monte Carlo based.

RESULTS

The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-definedG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ to investigate the impact of the GT rotation gradient on plan quality is successfully demonstrated. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , slight (case C,D m e a n , p a r o t i d l . ${D}_{mean,\ parotid\ l.}$ : up to‍-1‍Gy) and substantial (case A,D 0.03 c m 3 , o p t i c n e r v e r . ${D}_{0.03c{m}^3,\ optic\ nerve\ r.}$ : up to -9.3 Gy, case‍B,D m e a n , b r a i n $\ {D}_{mean,\ brain}$ : up to -4.7‍Gy) improvements in OAR sparing are observed compared to VMAT, while maintaining similar target coverage. All plans are delivered on the TrueBeam. Expected and actual machine position values recorded in the logfiles deviated by <0.2° for gantry, table and collimator rotation. The film measurements agreed by >96% (2%‍global/2 mm Gamma passing rate) with the dose calculation. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , delivery time is prolonged by <2 min/trajectory (DTRT-4) compared to VMAT and DTRT-1. The DTRT plans for case A and B and the VMAT plan for case C plan reveal the best dosimetric robustness for the considered uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.

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.

A prospective study to assess and quantify the setup errors with cone-beam computed tomography in head-and-neck cancer image-guided radiotherapy treatment

Introduction

This study was done to quantify the translational setup errors with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) treatment of head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients.

Aims

The objective was to quantify the setup errors by CBCT.

Methodology

One hundred patients of HNC were enrolled from March 2020 to March 2021 for IGRT treatment. Pretreatment kV-CBCT images were obtained at the first 3 days of irradiations, and setup error corrections were done in the mediolateral (ML), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Subsequently, a weekly kV-CBCT was repeated for whole duration of radiotherapy for the next 6-7 weeks. Adequacy of planning target volume (PTV) margins was assessed by van Herk's formula.

Results

Total 630 CBCT scans of 100 patients were analyzed. Setup errors greater than 3 mm and 5 mm were seen in 11.4% and 0.31% of the patients, respectively. Systematic errors and random errors before correction in ML, SI, and AP directions were 0.10 cm, 0.11 cm, and 0.12 cm and 0.24 cm, 0.20 cm, and 0.21 cm, respectively. Systematic errors and random errors after correction in ML, SI, and AP directions were 0.06 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.07 cm and 0.13 cm, 0.10 cm, and 0.12 cm, respectively.

Conclusion

CBCT at the first 3 fractions and then weekly during radiotherapy is effective to detect the setup errors. An isotropic PTV margin of 5 mm over clinical target volume is safe to account for setup errors, however, in the case of close organ at risk, or with IGRT, a PTV margin of 3 mm can be considered.

Clinical value of styrofoam fixation in intracranial tumor radiotherapy

Objective

To analyze the application value of two postural fixation techniques.(styrofoam combined with head mask and fixed headrest combined with head mask) in intracranial tumor radiotherapy via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods

This study included 104 patients with intracranial tumors undergoing radiotherapy. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A (54 cases with styrofoam fixation) and Group B (50 cases with fixed headrest fixation). The positional deviation in 3D space between the two groups was compared using CBCT. The set-up errors were expressed as median (25th percentile, 75th percentile)or M(p25, p75) since the set-up errors in all directions were not normally distributed,The Mann-Whitney U test was performed.

Results

The age and gender of patients in the two groups were not significantly different. The set-up errors of A in lateral (X), longitudinal (Y), vertical (Z), and yaw(Rtn) axes were 1.0 (0,1) mm, 1.0 (0,1) mm, 1.0 (0,2) mm, and 0.4 (0.1, 0.8) degrees, respectively while the set-up errors of B were 1.0 (0,1) mm, 1.0 (1,2) mm, 1.0 (0,2) mm, and 0.5 (0.15,0.9) degrees, respectively. Moreover, patients in the styrofoam group had significantly smaller set-up errors in the Y-axis than patients in the headrest group (p=0.001). However, set-up errors in the X, Z, and Rtn axes were not significantly different between the two groups. The expansion boundaries of the target area in the X, Y, and Z directions were 1.77 mm, 2.45 mm, and 2.47 mm, respectively. The outer expansion boundaries of the headrest group were 2.03 mm, 3.88 mm, and 2.57 mm in X, Y, and Z directions, respectively. The set-up times of groups A and B were (32.71 ± 5.21) seconds and (46.57 ± 6.68) seconds, respectively (p=0.014). Patients in group A had significantly better comfort satisfaction than patients in group B (p=0.001).

Conclusion

Styrofoam plus head thermoplastic mask body fixation technique has a higher positional accuracy in intracranial tumor radiotherapy than headrest plus head thermoplastic mask fixation. Besides, styrofoam plus head thermoplastic mask body fixation technique is associated with improved positioning efficiency, and better comfort than headrest plus head thermoplastic mask fixation, and thus can be effectively applied for intracranial tumor radiotherapy positioning.

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.

Set-up errors of the neck are underestimated using the overall registration frame of head and neck in IMRT for NPC

BACKGROUND

There is no standardized registration frame of cone beam CT (CBCT) in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The overall registration frame that covers the whole head and neck is the most commonly used CBCT registration frame for NPC patients in IMRT.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the set-up errors using different registration frames of CBCT for NPC to assess the set-up errors for different region of the commonly used clinical overall registration frame.

METHODS

294 CBCT images of 59 NPC patients were collected. Four registration frames were used for matching. The set-up errors were obtained using an automatic matching algorithm and then compared. The expansion margin from the clinical target volume (CTV) to the planned target volume (PTV) in the four groups was also calculated.

RESULTS

The average range of the isocenter translation and rotation errors of four registration frames are 0.89∼2.41 mm and 0.49∼1.53°, respectively, which results in a significant difference in the set-up errors (p < 0.05). The set-up errors obtained from the overall frame are smaller than those obtained from the head, upper neck, and lower neck frames. The margin ranges of the overall, head, upper neck, and lower neck frames in three translation directions are 1.49∼2.39 mm, 1.92∼2.45 mm, 1.86∼3.54 mm and 3.02∼4.78 mm, respectively. The expansion margins calculated from the overall frame are not enough, especially for the lower neck.

CONCLUSION

Set-up errors of the neck are underestimated by the overall registration frame. Thus, it is important to improve the position immobilization of the neck, especially the lower neck. The margin of the target volume of the head and neck region should be expanded separately if circumstances permit.

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.

As Easy as 1, 2, 3? How to Determine CBCT Frequency in Adjuvant Breast Radiotherapy

The current study aims to assess the suitability of setup errors during the first three treatment fractions to determine cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) frequency in adjuvant breast radiotherapy. For this, 45 breast cancer patients receiving non-hypofractionated radiotherapy after lumpectomy, including a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the tumor bed and daily CBCT imaging, were retrospectively selected. In a first step, mean and maximum setup errors on treatment days 1–3 were correlated with the mean setup errors during subsequent treatment days. In a second step, dose distribution was estimated using a dose accumulation workflow based on deformable image registration, and setup errors on treatment days 1–3 were correlated with dose deviations in the clinical target volumes (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR). No significant correlation was found between mean and maximum setup errors on treatment days 1–3 and mean setup errors during subsequent treatment days. In addition, mean and maximum setup errors on treatment days 1–3 correlated poorly with dose coverage of the CTVs and dose to the OARs. Thus, CBCT frequency in adjuvant breast radiotherapy should not be determined solely based on the magnitude of setup errors during the first three treatment fractions.

Impact of Cold Weather on Setup Errors in Radiotherapy

Objective

To investigate the influence of cold weather on setup errors of patients with chest and pelvic disease in radiotherapy.

Methods

The image-guided data of the patients were collected from the Radiotherapy Center of Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Guangxi Medical University from October 2020 to February 2021. During this period, the cold weather days were December 15, 16, and 17, 2020, and January 7 and 8, 2021. For body fixation in radiotherapy, an integrated plate and a thermoplastic mold were employed in 18 patients with chest disease, while an integrated plate and a vacuum pad were applied in 19 patients with pelvic disease. All patients underwent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in the first five treatments and once a week thereafter. The obtained data were registered to the planning CT image to get the setup errors of the patient in the translational direction including X, Y, and Z axes and rotational direction including R _X , R _Y , and R _Z . Then, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed. The expansion boundary values of the chest and pelvis were calculated according to the formula M _PTV=2.5∑+0.7δ.

Results

A total of 286 eligible results of CBCT scans were collected. There were 138 chest CBCT scans, including 26 taken in cold weather and 112 in usual weather, and 148 pelvic CBCT scans, including 33 taken in cold weather and 115 in usual weather. The X-, Y-, and Z-axis translational setup errors of patients with chest disease in the cold weather group were 0.16 (0.06, 0.32) cm, 0.25 (0.17, 0.52) cm, and 0.35 (0.21, 0.47) cm, respectively, and those in the usual weather group were 0.14 (0.08, 0.29) cm, 0.23 (0.13, 0.37) cm, and 0.18 (0.1, 0.35) cm, respectively. The results indicated that there was a statistical difference in the Z-axis translational error between the cold weather group and the usual weather group (U = 935.5; p=0.005 < 0.05), while there was no statistical difference in the rotational error between the two groups. The external boundary values of X, Y, and Z axes in the cold weather group were 0.57 cm, 0.92 cm, and 0.99 cm, respectively, and those in the usual weather group were 0.57 cm, 0.78 cm, and 0.68 cm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the translational and rotational errors of patients with pelvic disease between the cold weather group and the usual weather group (p < 0.05). The external boundary values of X, Y, and Z axes were 0.63 cm, 0.79 cm, and 0.68 cm in the cold weather group and 0.61 cm, 0.79 cm, and 0.61 cm in the usual weather group, respectively.

Conclusion

The setup error of patients undergoing radiotherapy with their bodies fixed by an integrated plate and a thermoplastic mold was greater in cold weather than in usual weather, especially in the ventrodorsal direction.

Automated algorithm for calculation of setup corrections and planning target volume margins for offline image-guided radiotherapy protocols

Purpose

Each radiotherapy center should have a site‐specific planning target volume (PTV) margins and image‐guided (IG) radiotherapy (IGRT) correction protocols to compensate for the geometric errors that can occur during treatment. This study developed an automated algorithm for the calculation and evaluation of these parameters from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)‐based IG‐intensity modulated radiotherapy (IG‐IMRT) treatment.

Methods and materials

A MATLAB algorithm was developed to extract the setup errors in three translational directions (x, y, and z) from the data logged by the CBCT system during treatment delivery. The algorithm also calculates the resulted population setup error and PTV margin based on the van Herk margin recipe and subsequently estimates their respective values for no action level (NAL) and extended no action level (eNAL) offline correction protocols. The algorithm was tested on 25 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated using IG‐IMRT.

Results

The algorithms calculated that the HNC patients require a PTV margin of 3.1, 2.7, and 3.2 mm in the x‐, y‐, and z‐direction, respectively, without IGRT. The margin can be reduced to 2.0, 2.2, and 3.0 mm in the x‐, y‐, and z‐direction, respectively, with NAL and 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2 mm in the x‐, y‐, and z‐direction, respectively, with eNAL protocol. The results obtained were verified to be the same with the margins calculated using an Excel spreadsheet. The algorithm calculates the weekly offline setup error correction values automatically and reduces the risk of input data error observed in the spreadsheet.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the algorithm provides an automated method for optimization and reduction of PTV margin using logged setup errors from CBCT‐based IGRT.

IMPACT OF THREE DIFFERENT MATCHING METHODS ON PATIENT SET-UP ERROR IN X-RAY VOLUMETRIC IMAGING FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

Impact of three different matching methods for delivery of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) in Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on patient set-up error. As per institutional imaging protocol, 300 CBCT scans of 20 VMAT head and neck cancer patients treated with 60 Gy/30 fractions were chosen for the present study. Approved CT images of the plan were registered as a reference with the CBCT images on board. Grey-scale matching (GM), manual matching (MM), and bone matching (BM) between on-board CBCT and reference CT images were used to assess patient translation errors. Patient positioning verification was evaluated using the Clip-box registration in all three matching methods. Using the GM approach as a reference point, two additional matchings were rendered in offline mode using BM and MM. For analysis, random error (σ), systematic error (∑), maximum error (E) mean set-up error (M), mean displacement vector (R), matching time (Mt), and multiple comparisons using Post hoc Tukey's HSD test were performed. In MM, less random and systematic errors were found than in GM and BM with an insignificant difference (p > 0.05) Compared to BM and GM, the maximum error, mean set-up error, and displacement vector were marginally less in MM (p > 0.05). In MM, an increased Mt relative to BM and GM was observed (p > 0.05). Furthermore, an insignificant difference in set-up error was revealed in a multiple comparison test (p > 0.05). Any of the three matching methods can be used during CBCT to check patient translation errors for the delivery of the VMAT head and neck patients.

Effectiveness of the No action level protocol for head & neck patients - Time considerations

Background

The No Action Protocol (NAL) was used to diminish the systematic set-up error. Recently, owing to the development of image registration technologies, the on-line positioning control is more often used. This method significantly reduces the CTV-PTV margin at the expense of the lengthening of a treatment session. The efficiency of NAL in decreasing the total treatment time for Head&Neck patients was investigated.

Methods

Results of set-up control of 30 patients were analyzed. The set-up control was carried out on-line. For each patient and each fraction, the set-error and the time needed for making the set-up control procedure were measured. Next, retrospectively, the NAL was applied to this data. The number of initial errors (without interventions) and after NAL protocol were compared in terms of errors larger than 3 and 4 mm. The average and total time used for portal control was calculated and compared.

Results

The number of setup errors in the posterior-anterior, inferior-superior, and right-left directions ≥3 mm and ≥4 mm were 98, 79, and 91 sessions and 44, 38 and 30 sessions out of 884 sessions. After NAL protocol the number of errors ≥3 mm and ≥4 mm decreased to 84, 57, and 39 sessions and 31, 15 and 10 sessions, respectively. The average time needed for one set-up control was 5.1 min. NAL protocol allows saving 4049 min for the whole group.

Conclusions

For locations where the random set-up errors are small, the NAL enables a very precise treatment of patients. Implementation of this protocol significantly decreases the total treatment time.

Evaluation of the effect of random setup errors on dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Aim: To conduct a study on the effect of random setup errors inpatient for dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans using Octavius 4D phantom.

Materials and methods: 11 patients with cancer of H&N were selected for this study. An IMRT plan was created for each patient. The IMRT quality assurance plans were transferred to Mosaiq workstation in a linear accelerator. These plans were delivered at the reference treatment position. Subsequently, the QA plans were delivered on the Octavius 4D phantom after introducing errors in various translational and rotational directions. The setup inaccuracies introduced varied from 1 mm to 5 mm along X, Y. These setup uncertainties were then introduced along X and Y direction simultaneously in equal measures. Similarly, IMRT plans were delivered also after introducing roll and yaw rotation of 1, 2 and 3 degrees in phantom. The deviation of gamma indices at all these positions was analyzed with respect to the reference setup position.

Results: The percentage of points passing the gamma acceptance criterion decrease as we increase the setup error. The change is found to be very insignificant with setup error up to 2 mm along X, Y or XY direction. Similarly, the rotational error of up to 3 degrees is found to be acceptable.

Conclusions: Small setup (< 2 mm) correction in patients may not adversely affect the dose delivery. But an error of similar magnitude in 2 directions simultaneously has a much greater impact on IMRT dose delivery.

Effect of Surgical Mask on Setup Error in Head and Neck Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

With the widespread prevalence of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), cancer patients are suggested to wear a surgical mask during radiation treatment. In this study, cone beam CT (CBCT) was used to investigate the effect of surgical mask on setup errors in head and neck radiotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 91 patients with head and neck tumors were selected. CBCT was performed to localize target volume after patient set up. The images obtained by CBCT before treatment were automatically registered with CT images and manually fine-tuned. The setup errors of patients in 6 directions of Vrt, Lng, Lat, Pitch, Roll and Rotation were recorded. The patients were divided into groups according to whether they wore the surgical mask, the type of immobilization mask used and the location of the isocenter. The setup errors of patients were calculated. A t-test was performed to detect whether it was statistically significant.

RESULTS

In the 4 groups, the standard deviation in the directions of Lng and Pitch of the with surgical mask group were all higher than that in the without surgical mask group. In the head-neck-shoulder mask group, the mean in the Lng direction of the with surgical mask group was larger than that of the without surgical mask group. In the lateral isocenter group, the mean in the Lng and Pitch directions of the with surgical mask group were larger than that of the without surgical mask group. The t-test results showed that there was significant difference in the setup error between the 2 groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.013, respectively) only in the Lng and Pitch directions of the head-neck-shoulder mask group. In addition, the setup error of 6 patients with immobilization open masks exhibited no distinguished difference from that of the patients with regular immobilization masks.

CONCLUSION

In the head and neck radiotherapy patients, the setup error was affected by wearing surgical mask. It is recommended that the immobilization open mask should be used when the patient cannot finish the whole treatment with a surgical mask.

Dose distribution comparison in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique

Aim

This study compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique (EBCT).

Background

Dose calculation algorisms for VMAT have limitations in the buildup region.

Materials and methods

Three VMAT plans were enrolled, with one case having a metal artifact from an artificial tooth. The proper dose was calculated using Eclipse version 11.0. The body contours were extended 2 cm outward from the skin surface in three-dimensional space, and the dose was recalculated with an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). Monitor units (MUs) were set, and the dose distributions in the planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume, and organ at risk (OAR) and conformity index (CI) with and without an EBCT were compared. The influence of a metal artifact outside of the thermoplastic head mask was also compared.

Results

The coverage of PTV by the 95% dose line near the patient's skin was increased drastically by using an EBCT. Plan renormalization had a negligible impact on MUs and doses delivered to OARs. CI of PTV with a 6-MV photon beam was closer to 1 than that with a 10-MV photon beam when both AAA and AXB were used in all cases. Metal artifacts outside the head mask had no effect on dose distribution.

Conclusions

An EBCT is needed to estimate the proper dose at object volumes near the patient's skin and can improve the accuracy of the calculated dose at target volumes.

Effect of low magnetic field on single-diode dosimetry for clinical use

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of a low magnetic field (B-field, 0.35 T) on QED™ for clinical use.

METHODS

Black and Blue QED were irradiated using tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy systems with and without the B-field. For both detectors, angular dependence of the beam orientation was evaluated by rotating the gantry and detector in parallel and perpendicular directions to the B-field. Angular dependence betweenthe directions of both QED and B-field was also measured. Response on the depth and output factor of both detectors was investigated for parallel and perpendicular setups, respectively.

RESULTS

When Black QED was placed on a surface, detector response decreased by 1.8% and 4.5% for parallel and perpendicular setups, respectively, owing to the B-field. The angular dependence of the beam orientation was not affected by B-field for both detectors. There was a significant angular dependence between Black QED and B-field direction and for the Black QED when the gantry was rotated. Owing to the B-field, the detector response at 90° decreased by 2.4%, response of Black QED on the depth was changed only on the surface, and output factor of Black QED was changed only on the surface. The response of Blue QED was not affected by the B-field for all examined situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Black QED on a surface in the same position as that in the calibration requires some correction to the B-field. Blue QED does not require correction as it is not affected by the B-field.