A Low-Cost Method to Assess the Performance of Surface Guidance Imaging Systems at Non-Zero Couch Angles

Comparison of patient setup accuracy for optical surface-guided and X-ray-guided imaging with respect to the impact on intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The objective of this work is to estimate the patient positioning accuracy of a surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system using an optical surface scanner compared to an X‑ray-based imaging system (IGRT) with respect to their impact on intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

METHODS

Patient positioning data, both acquired with SGRT and IGRT systems at the same linacs, serve as a basis for determination of positioning accuracy. A total of 35 patients with two different open face masks (578 datasets) were positioned using X‑ray stereoscopic imaging and the patient position inside the open face mask was recorded using SGRT. The measurement accuracy of the SGRT system (in a "standard" and an SRS mode with higher resolution) was evaluated using both IGRT and SGRT patient positioning datasets taking into account the measurement errors of the X‑ray system. Based on these clinically measured datasets, the positioning accuracy was estimated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The relevant evaluation criterion, as standard of practice in cranial SRT, was the 95th percentile.

RESULTS

The interfractional measurement displacement vector of the SGRT system, σSGRT, in high resolution mode was estimated at 2.5 mm (68th percentile) and 5 mm (95th percentile). If the standard resolution was used, σSGRT increased by about 20%. The standard deviation of the axis-related σSGRT of the SGRT system ranged between 1.5 and 1.8 mm interfractionally and 0.5 and 1.0 mm intrafractionally. The magnitude of σSGRT is mainly due to the principle of patient surface scanning and not due to technical limitations or vendor-specific issues in software or hardware. Based on the resulting σSGRT, MC simulations served as a measure for the positioning accuracy for non-coplanar couch rotations. If an SGRT system is used as the only patient positioning device in non-coplanar fields, interfractional positioning errors of up to 6 mm and intrafractional errors of up to 5 mm cannot be ruled out. In contrast, MC simulations resulted in a positioning error of 1.6 mm (95th percentile) using the IGRT system. The cause of positioning errors in the SGRT system is mainly a change in the facial surface relative to a defined point in the brain.

CONCLUSION

In order to achieve the necessary geometric accuracy in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy, use of an X‑ray-based IGRT system, especially when treating with non-coplanar couch angles, is highly recommended.

Evaluation and correlation of patient movement during online adaptive radiotherapy with CBCT and a surface imaging system

PURPOSE

With the clinical implementation of kV-CBCT-based daily online-adaptive radiotherapy, the ability to monitor, quantify, and correct patient movement during adaptive sessions is paramount. With sessions lasting between 20-45 min, the ability to detect and correct for small movements without restarting the entire session is critical to the adaptive workflow and dosimetric outcome. The purpose of this study was to quantify and evaluate the correlation of observed patient movement with machine logs and a surface imaging (SI) system during adaptive radiation therapy.

METHODS

Treatment machine logs and SGRT registration data log files for 1972 individual sessions were exported and analyzed. For each session, the calculated shifts from a pre-delivery position verification CBCT were extracted from the machine logs and compared to the SGRT registration data log files captured during motion monitoring. The SGRT calculated shifts were compared to the reported shifts of the machine logs for comparison for all patients and eight disease site categories.

RESULTS

The average (±STD) net displacement of the SGRT shifts were 2.6 ± 3.4 mm, 2.6 ± 3.5 mm, and 3.0 ± 3.2 in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. For the treatment machine logs, the average net displacements in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions were 2.7 ± 3.7 mm, 2.6 ± 3.7 mm, and 3.2 ± 3.6 mm. The average difference (Machine-SGRT) was -0.1 ± 1.8 mm, 0.2 ± 2.1 mm, and -0.5 ± 2.5 mm for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions. On average, a movement of 5.8 ± 5.6 mm and 5.3 ± 4.9 mm was calculated prior to delivery for the CBCT and SGRT systems, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CBCT and SGRT shifts was r = 0.88. The mean and median difference between the treatment machine logs and SGRT log files was less than 1 mm for all sites.

CONCLUSION

Surface imaging should be used to monitor and quantify patient movement during adaptive radiotherapy.

A Holographic Augmented Reality Guidance System for Patient Alignment: A Feasibility Study

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of an augmented reality holographic guidance system for potential use in patient alignment in radiotherapy applications.

Methods

A cubic phantom was scanned on a CT simulator and a 3D mesh was extracted using the Eclipse Scripting API. An application was created for the Microsoft HoloLens to allow users to see the scanned mesh as a hologram overlaid in the treatment vault. Six therapists were equipped with the HoloLens glasses and instructed to move the real phantom to align with the perceived spatial hologram using only couch controls. The initial couch coordinates were recorded and then recorded at each step as the therapist moved the phantom to each new location. The application varied the position of the virtual phantom to 10 preprogrammed locations within a 40-cm cubic volume in a combination of vertical, longitudinal, and lateral axis shifts. The absolute position difference between the holographic world and real-world phantom was recorded at each step. Also, the relative position from one position to the next was recorded.

Results

Fifty shifts were collected across the six therapists. The mean difference between the physical position and instructed holographic position was 0.58 ± 0.31 cm for relative shifts and 0.51 ± 0.33 cm for absolute position. The maximum difference between the holographic position and the actual post shift position was 1.53 cm for relative and 1.58 cm for absolute.

Conclusion

Holographic augmented reality guidance using the Microsoft HoloLens provides adequate accuracy for initial treatment alignment but lacks the fine alignment accuracy of X-ray imaging systems.