Image-guided radiotherapy via daily online cone-beam CT substantially reduces margin requirements for stereotactic lung radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To determine treatment accuracy and margins for stereotactic lung radiotherapy with and without cone-beam CT (CBCT) image guidance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Acquired for the study were 308 CBCT of 24 patients with solitary peripheral lung tumors treated with stereotactic radiotherapy. Patients were immobilized in a stereotactic body frame (SBF) or alpha-cradle and treated with image guidance using daily CBCT. Four (T1) or five (T2/metastatic) 12-Gy fractions were prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) edge. The PTV margin was >or=5 mm depending on a pretreatment estimate of tumor excursion. Initial daily setup was according to SBF coordinates or tattoos for alpha-cradle cases. A CBCT was performed and registered to the planning CT using soft tissue registration of the target. The initial setup error/precorrection position, was recorded for the superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions. The couch was adjusted to correct the tumor positional error. A second CBCT verified tumor position after correction. Patients were treated in the corrected position after the residual errors were 相似文献   

Analysis and reduction of 3D systematic and random setup errors during the simulation and treatment of lung cancer patients with CT-based external beam radiotherapy dose planning

PURPOSE: To determine the magnitude of the errors made in (a) the setup of patients with lung cancer on the simulator relative to their intended setup with respect to the planned treatment beams and (b) in the setup of these patients on the treatment unit. To investigate how the systematic component of the latter errors can be reduced with an off-line decision protocol for setup corrections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 39 patients with CT planning, digitally-reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were calculated for anterior-posterior and lateral beams. Retrospectively, the position of the visible anatomy relative to the planned isocenter was compared with the corresponding position on the digitized simulator radiographs using contour match software. The setup accuracy at the treatment unit relative to the simulator setup was measured for 40 patients for at least 5 fractions per patient in 2 orthogonal beams with the aid of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Setup corrections were applied, based on an off-line decision protocol, with parameters derived from knowledge of the random setup errors in the studied patient group. RESULTS: The standard deviations (SD) of the simulator setup errors relative to the CT planning setup in the lateral, longitudinal, and anterior-posterior directions were 4.0, 2.8, and 2.5 mm, respectively. The SD of rotations around the anterior-posterior axis was 1.6 degrees and around the left-right axis 1.3 degrees. The setup error at the treatment unit had a small random component in all three directions (1 SD = 2 mm). The systematic components were larger, particularly in the longitudinal direction (1 SD = 3.6 mm), but were reduced with the decision protocol to 1 SD < 2 mm with, on average, 0.6 setup correction per patient. CONCLUSION: Setup errors at the simulator, which become systematic errors if the simulation defines the reference setup, were comparable to the systematic setup errors at the treatment unit in case no off-line protocol would have been applied. Hence, the omission of a separate simulation step can reduce systematic errors as efficiently as the application of an off-line correction protocol during treatment. The random errors were sufficiently small to make an off-line protocol feasible.     

Reducing set-up uncertainty in the Elekta Stereotactic Body Frame using Stealthstation software

The Elekta Stereotactic Body Frame (SBF) is a device which allows extracranial targets to be localized and irradiated in a stereotactic coordinate system. Errors of positioning of the body relative to the frame are indirectly estimated by image fusion of multiple CT scans. A novel repositioning methodology, based on neurosurgical Stealth technology, is presented whereby accurate patient repositioning is directly confirmed before treatment delivery. Repositioning was performed on four extracranial stereotactic radiosurgery patients and a radiotherapy simulation phantom. The setup error was quantitatively measured by fiducial localization. A confirmatory CT scan was performed and the resulting image set registered to the initial scan to quantify shifts in the GTV isocenter. Alignment confirmation using Stealth took between 5 and 10 minutes. For the phantom studies, a reproducibly of 0.6 mm accuracy of phantom-to-SBF alignment was measured. The results on four actual patients showed setup errors of 1.5 mm or less. Using the Stealth Station process, rapid confirmation of alignment on the treatment table is possible.     

Reduction of radiation pneumonitis by V20-constraints in breast cancer

Background

To assess the accuracy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) using a stereotactic mask fixation system.

Patients and Methods

Sixteen patients treated with FSRT were involved in the study. A commercial stereotactic mask fixation system (BrainLAB AG) was used for patient immobilization. Serial CT scans obtained before and during FSRT were used to assess the accuracy of patient immobilization by comparing the isocenter position. Daily portal imaging were acquired to establish day to day patient position variation. Displacement errors along the different directions were calculated as combination of systematic and random errors.

Results

The mean isocenter displacements based on localization and verification CT imaging were 0.1 mm (SD 0.3 mm) in the lateral direction, 0.1 mm (SD 0.4 mm) in the anteroposterior, and 0.3 mm (SD 0.4 mm) in craniocaudal direction. The mean 3D displacement was 0.5 mm (SD 0.4 mm), being maximum 1.4 mm. No significant differences were found during the treatment (P = 0.4). The overall isocenter displacement as calculated by 456 anterior and lateral portal images were 0.3 mm (SD 0.9 mm) in the mediolateral direction, -0.2 mm (SD 1 mm) in the anteroposterior direction, and 0.2 mm (SD 1.1 mm) in the craniocaudal direction. The largest displacement of 2.7 mm was seen in the cranio-caudal direction, with 95% of displacements < 2 mm in any direction.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the setup error of the presented mask system evaluated by CT verification scans and portal imaging are minimal. Reproducibility of the isocenter position is in the best range of positioning reproducibility reported for other stereotactic systems.     

CT image fusion as a tool for measuring in 3D the setup errors during conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The importance of optimal daily patient positioning has been stressed in order to ensure treatment reproducibility and gain in accuracy and precision. We report our data on the 3D setup uncertainty during radiation therapy for prostate cancer using the CT image fusion technique. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients scheduled for radiation therapy for prostate cancer underwent 5 prone position CT scans using an individualized immobilization cast. These different setups were analyzed using the image fusion module of the ERGO 3D-Line Medical System (Milan, Italy) treatment planning system. The isocenter and the body marker displacements were measured. RESULTS: The 3D isocenter dislocations were quantified: systematic error was sigma(3D) = 3.9 mm, whereas random error was sigma(3D) = 1 mm. The mean of the minimum displacements was 0.2 +/- 1 mm showing that the immobilization device used allows an accurate setup to be obtained. Single direction errors were also measured showing systematic errors, sigma(AP), = 2.6 mm, sigma(LL) = 0.6 mm, SigmaSI = 3 mm in the anterior-posterior, latero-lateral, superior-inferior direction, respectively. Related random errors were sigma(AP), = 1 mm, sigma(LL) = 0.6 mm, sigma(SI) = 1.2 mm. In terms of accuracy, our uncertainties are similar to those reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: By applying the CT image fusion technique, a 3D study on setup accuracy was performed. We demonstrated that the use of an individualized immobilization system for prostate treatment is adequate to obtain good setup accuracy, as long as a high-quality positioning control method, such as the stereoscopic X-ray-based positioning system, is used.     

Noninvasive patient fixation for extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the setup accuracy that can be achieved with a novel noninvasive patient fixation technique based on a body cast attached to a recently developed stereotactic body frame during fractionated extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one CT studies (> or = 20 slices, thickness: 3 mm) from 5 patients who were immobilized in a body cast attached to a stereotactic body frame for treatment of paramedullary tumors in the thoracic or lumbar spine were evaluated with respect to setup accuracy. The immobilization device consisted of a custom-made wrap-around body cast that extended from the neck to the thighs and a separate head mask, both made from Scotchcast. Each CT study was performed immediately before or after every second or third actual treatment fraction without repositioning the patient between CT and treatment. The stereotactic localization system was mounted and the isocenter as initially located stereotactically was marked with fiducials for each CT study. Deviation of the treated isocenter as compared to the planned position was measured in all three dimensions. RESULTS: The immobilization device can be easily handled, attached to and removed from the stereotactic frame and thus enables treatment of multiple patients with the same stereotactic frame each day. Mean patient movements of 1.6 mm+/-1.2 mm (laterolateral [LL]), 1.4 mm+/-1.0 mm (anterior-posterior [AP]), 2.3 mm+/-1.3 mm (transversal vectorial error [VE]) and < slice thickness = 3 mm (craniocaudal [CC]) were recorded for the targets in the thoracic spine and 1.4 mm+/-1.0 mm (LL), 1.2 mm+/-0.7 mm (AP), 1.8 mm+/-1.2 mm (VE), and < 3 mm (CC) for the lumbar spine. The worst case deviation was 3.9 mm for the first patient with the target in the thoracic spine (in the LL direction). Combining those numbers (mean transversal VE for both locations and maximum CC error of 3 mm), the mean three-dimensional vectorial patient movement and thus the mean overall accuracy can be safely estimated to be < or = 3.6 mm. CONCLUSION: The presented combination of a body cast and head mask system in a rigid stereotactic body frame ensures reliable noninvasive patient fixation for fractionated extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy and may enable dose escalation for less radioresponsive tumors that are near the spinal cord or otherwise critically located while minimizing the risk of late sequelae.     

Comparison of setup accuracy and intrafraction motion using stereotactic frame versus 3-point thermoplastic mask-based immobilization for fractionated cranial image guided radiation therapy

PurposeProspectively compare patient setup accuracy and intrafraction motion of a standard 3-point thermoplastic mask with the Gill-Thomas-Cosman relocatable stereotactic frame, during fractionated cranial radiation therapy using the ExacTrac system (Brainlab AG Feldkirchen, Germany) for daily online correction.Methods and MaterialsThe number of fractions with all postcorrection and post-treatment errors < 2 mm was assessed in 21 patients undergoing fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (13 frame setup, 8 mask setup) using daily online correction. Achievable patient setup accuracy and total intrafraction motion were evaluated. The relative contributions of movement during floor rotation and patient movement to intrafraction motion were calculated.ResultsWith daily online correction, patient setup margins can be reduced from 1, 5, and 4 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes for mask setup and from 1-2, 2, and 1 mm, respectively, for frame setup to < 1 mm isotropically for either immobilization system. Intrafraction movement was small for frame setup (mean [SD], ? 0.3 [0.3], ? 1.1[0.4], and ? 0.2 [0.6] in lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes, respectively; maximum, ? 2.7 mm [longitudinal axis]), and mask-setup (mean [SD], ? 0.4 [0.5], ? 0.8 [0.7], and 0.0 [0.3], respectively; maximum, ? 2.0 mm [longitudinal axis]) and is mainly due to floor rotation. Postcorrection and post-treatment errors were all < 2 mm in 95% and 99% of fractions in the mask and frame, respectively, meeting the criteria for a 3-mm clinical target volume-planning target volume margin for either immobilization method.ConclusionsDaily online correction can compensate for less precise immobilization and permits stereotactic margins to be used for standard thermoplastic masks without the need for specialized mask systems.     

Dosimetric effect of translational and rotational errors for patients undergoing image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases

PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric effects of translational and rotational patient positioning errors on the treatment of spinal and paraspinal metastases using computed tomography image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy. The results of this study provide guidance for the treatment planning process and recognition of the dosimetric consequences of daily patient treatment setup errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data from 20 patients treated for metastatic spinal cancer using image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy were investigated in this study. To simulate the dosimetric effects of residual setup uncertainties, 36 additional plans (total, 756 plans) were generated for each isocenter (total, 21 isocenters) on the planning computed tomography images, which included isocenter lateral, anteroposterior, superoinferior shifts, and patient roll, yaw, and pitch rotations. Tumor volume coverage and the maximal dose to the organs at risk were compared with those of the original plan. Six daily treatments were also investigated to determine the dosimetric effect with or without the translational and rotational corrections. RESULTS: A 2-mm error in translational patient positioning error in any direction can result in >5% tumor coverage loss and >25% maximal dose increase to the organs at risk. Rotational correction is very important for patients with multiple targets and for the setup of paraspinal patients when the isocenter is away from bony structures. Compared with the original plans, the daily treatment data indicated that translational adjustments could correct most of the setup errors to mean divergences of -1.4% for tumor volume coverage and -0.3% for the maximal dose to the organs at risk. CONCLUSION: For the best dosimetric results, spinal stereotactic treatments should have setup translational errors of < or =1 mm and rotational errors of < or =2 degrees .     

Target coverage in image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver tumors

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of image-guided procedures (with computed tomography [CT] and electronic portal images before each treatment fraction) on target coverage in stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver patients using a stereotactic body frame (SBF) and abdominal compression. CT guidance was used to correct for day-to-day variations in the tumor's mean position in the SBF. METHODS AND MATERIALS: By retrospectively evaluating 57 treatment sessions, tumor coverage, as obtained with the clinically applied CT-guided protocol, was compared with that of alternative procedures. The internal target volume-plus (ITV(+)) was introduced to explicitly include uncertainties in tumor delineations resulting from CT-imaging artifacts caused by residual respiratory motion. Tumor coverage was defined as the volume overlap of the ITV(+), derived from a tumor delineated in a treatment CT scan, and the planning target volume. Patient stability in the SBF, after acquisition of the treatment CT scan, was evaluated by measuring the displacement of the bony anatomy in the electronic portal images relative to CT. RESULTS: Application of our clinical protocol (with setup corrections following from manual measurements of the distances between the contours of the planning target volume and the daily clinical target volume in three orthogonal planes, multiple two-dimensional) increased the frequency of nearly full (> or = 99%) ITV(+) coverage to 77% compared with 63% without setup correction. An automated three-dimensional method further improved the frequency to 96%. Patient displacements in the SBF were generally small (< or = 2 mm, 1 standard deviation), but large craniocaudal displacements (maximal 7.2 mm) were occasionally observed. CONCLUSION: Daily, CT-assisted patient setup may substantially improve tumor coverage, especially with the automated three-dimensional procedure. In the present treatment design, patient stability in the SBF should be verified with portal imaging.     

Repositioning accuracy of a commercially available double-vacuum whole body immobilization system for stereotactic body radiation therapy

We evaluated the repositioning accuracy of a commercially available stereotactic whole body immobilization system (BodyFIX, Medical Intelligence, Schwabmuenchen, Germany) in 36 patients treated by hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy. CT data were acquired for positional control of patient and tumor before each fraction of the treatment course. Those control CT datasets were compared with the original treatment planning CT simulation and analyzed with respect to positional misalignment of bony patient anatomy, and the respective position of the treated small lung or liver lesions. We assessed the stereotactic coordinates of distinct bony anatomical landmarks in the original CT and each control dataset. In addition, the target isocenter was recorded in the planning CT simulation dataset. An iterative optimization algorithm was implemented, utilizing a root mean square scoring function to determine the best-fit orientation of subsequent sets of anatomical landmark measurements relative to the original treatment planning CT data set. This allowed for the calculation of the x, y and z-components of translation of the patient's body and the target's center-of-mass for each control CT study, as well as rotation about the principal room axes in the respective CT data sets. In addition to absolute patient/target translation, the total magnitude vector of patient and target misalignment was calculated. A clinical assessment determined whether or not the assigned planning target volume safety margins would have provided the desired target coverage. To this end, each control CT study was co-registered with the original treatment planning study using immobilization system related fiducial markers, and the computed isodose calculation was superimposed. In 109 control setup CT scans available for comparison with their respective treatment planning CT simulation study (2-5 per patient, median 3), anatomical landmark analysis revealed a mean bony landmark translation of -0.4 +/- 3.9 (mean +/- SD), -0.1 +/- 1.6 and 0.3 +/- 3.6 mm in x, y and z-directions, respectively. Bony landmark setup deviations along one or more principal axis larger than 5 mm were observed in 32 control CT studies (29.4%). Body rotations about the x-, y- and z-axis were 0.9 +/- 0.7, 0.8 +/- 0.7 and 1.8 +/- 1.6 degrees, respectively. Assuming a rigid body relationship of target and bony anatomy, the mean computed absolute target translation was 2.9 +/- 3.3, 2.3 +/- 2.5 and 3.2 +/- 2.7 mm in x, y and z-directions, respectively. The median and mean magnitude vector of target isocenter displacement was computed to be 4.9 mm, and 5.7 +/- 3.7 mm. Clinical assessment of PTV/target volume coverage revealed 72 (66.1%), 23 (21.1%), and 14 (12.8%), of excellent (100% isodose coverage), good (>90% isodose coverage), and poor GTV/isodose alignment quality (less than 90% isodose coverage to some aspect of the GTV), respectively. Loss of target volume dose coverage was correlated with translations >5 mm along one or more axes (p<0.0001), rotations >3 degrees about the z-axis (p=0.0007) and body mass index >30 (p<0.0001). The analyzed BodyFIX whole body immobilization system performed favorably compared with other stereotactic body immobilization systems for which peer-reviewed repositioning data exist. While the measured variability in patient and target setup provided clinically acceptable setup accuracy in the vast majority of cases, larger setup deviations were occasional observed. Such deviations constitute a potential for partial target underdosing warranting, in our opinion, a pre-delivery positional assessment procedure (e.g., pre-treatment control CT scan).     

Automatic target localization and verification for on-line image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy of the spine

To facilitate image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (IG-SBRT) of spinal and paraspinal tumors, the authors have developed an on-line image registration system for automated target localization and patient position verification with high precision. When rotations are present in a patient's daily setup position, a setup error of a few millimeters can be introduced in localization of the isocenter by using surrounding bony structures. This setup error not only will deteriorate the dose coverage of the tumor, more importantly it will overdose the spinal cord. To resolve this issue, the image registration program developed by the authors detects translational shifts as well as rotational shifts using 3D CT image registration. Unacceptable rotations were corrected by either repositioning the patient or adjusting the treatment couch that was capable of rotational corrections when such a couch was available for clinical use. One pair of orthogonal digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) were generated from the daily pretreatment CT scan to compare with the corresponding DRRs generated from the planning CT scan to confirm the target shift correction. After the patient's position was corrected a pair of orthogonal portal images were taken for final verification. The accuracy of the image registration result was found to be within 0.1 mm on a head and neck phantom. Target shifts of a fraction of a millimeter were readily visible in our DRR comparison and portal image verification. The time needed to complete the image registration and DRR comparison was about 3 minutes. An integrated system that combines a high-speed CT scanner and a linear accelerator was used for imaging and treatment delivery. Application of the program in actual IG-SBRT cases demonstrated that it was accurate, fast, and reliable. It serves as a useful tool for image-guided radiotherapy where high precision of target localization is required.     

Geometric accuracy of field alignment in fractionated stereotactic conformal radiotherapy of brain tumors

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of field alignment in patients undergoing three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy of brain tumors, and to evaluate the impact on the definition of planning target volume and control procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Geometric accuracy was analyzed in 20 patients undergoing fractionated stereotactic conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors. Rigid head fixation was achieved by using cast material. Transfer of stereotactic coordinates was performed by an external positioning device. The accuracy during treatment planning was quantitatively assessed by using repeated computed tomography (CT) examinations in treatment position (reproducibility of isocenter). Linear discrepancies were measured between treatment plan and CT examination. In addition, for each patient, a series of 20 verifications were taken in orthogonal projections. Linear discrepancies were measured between first and all subsequent verifications (accuracy during treatment delivery). RESULTS: For the total group of patients, the distribution of deviations during treatment setup showed mean values between -0.3-1.2 mm, with standard deviations (SD) of 1.3-2.0 mm. During treatment delivery, the distribution of deviations revealed mean values between 0.7-0.8 mm, with SDs of 0.5-0.6 mm, respectively. For all patients, deviations for the transition to the treatment machine were similar to deviations during subsequent treatment delivery, with 95% of all absolute deviations between less than 2.8 and 4.6 mm. CONCLUSION: Random fluctuations of field displacements during treatment planning and delivery prevail. Therefore, our quantitative data should be considered when prescribing the safety margins of the planning target volume. Repeated CT examination are useful to detect operator errors and large random or systematic deviations before start of treatment. Control procedures during treatment delivery appear to be of limited importance. In addition, our findings should help to determine "cut-off points" for corrective actions in stereotactic conformal radiotherapy of brain tumors.     

Quality control by portal film analysis in radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison between two different institutions and treatment techniques

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Accuracy and reproducibility of patient setup during radiotherapy for prostate cancer were investigated in two different Institutions (A and B), within their Quality Assurance programs. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare setup accuracy and reproducibility in Institutions A and B, which adopt different patient positioning and treatment techniques for prostate irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of portal localization films taken during the treatment course was performed: 30 and 21 patients in Institutes A and B, respectively, entered the study. In Institute A, patients were treated in a prone position, utilizing an individualized immobilization cast (either an alpha cradle or a heat and vacuum-formed cellulose acetate cast) with an open table top and individual abdominal wall compressor to minimize small bowel irradiation; a 5-field conformal technique was used. In Institute B, patients were treated in a supine position without any immobilization device; a 6-field BEV-based technique (conformal only for patients treated with a radical aim) was adopted. A total of 598 portal films (420 from Institute A and 178 from Institute B) were analyzed. The mean number of films per patient was 12 (range, 4-29). Systematic and random setup errors were estimated utilizing the statistical method suggested by Bijhold et al. (1992). RESULTS: When patients with a mean (systematic) error larger than 5, 8 and 10 mm in craniocaudal, lateral and posterior-anterior directions, respectively, were compared, no statistically significant difference between the two groups was observed. Similarly, when comparing portal films, a significant difference (P <0.01) appeared only in the craniocaudal direction (errors > 5 mm: Institute A = 24%; Institute B = 11%). In both Institutes, the SD of random and systematic error distribution ranged from 1.8 to 4.2 mm, with a small prevalence of systematic errors. Only for craniocaudal shifts in Institute A was the random error larger than the systematic error, and it was significantly worse than in Institute B (1 SD, 4.2 mm in Institute A vs 1.8 mm in Institute B). CONCLUSIONS: Setup errors observed in Institutes A and B were similar and in accord with data reported in the literature. In Institute B, satisfactory geometrical treatment quality was achieved without patient immobilization. In Institute A, the goal of minimizing small bowel irradiation and prostate motion through the aforementioned technique, which makes patient position less comfortable, did not seem to considerably increase daily setup uncertainty.     

头颈肿瘤立体定向分次照射靶区定位的误差分析

背景与目的:明确靶区定位的精确度是立体定向分次照射质量保证的基本要求。本文主要分析头颈肿瘤立体定向分次照射(fractionatedstereotacticradiotherapy,FSRT)中机械等中心、CT定位、治疗摆位以及CT图像误差等可能引起的靶区定位误差。方法:使用立体定向治疗计划系统、靶点模拟器、头部定位框架检查各个治疗阶段靶区定位的误差。设置任意5个参考点,使用靶点模拟器检查CT定位误差;选取7个不同机器臂架/治疗床角度,定期用胶片检验使用的PhilipsSL-18直线加速器等中心误差大小;用验证片检查治疗摆位误差;对自制模体行CT扫描,分析CT图像伪影可能引起的图像误差。结果:CT定位误差约为(1.5±0.4)mm;在检查的不同机器臂架/治疗床角度中机械等中心最大误差为(1.0±0.6)mm;患者摆位的距离误差为(1.0±0.3)mm;整个治疗过程中靶区定位误差约为(2.1±0.8)mm。结论:立体定向分次照射中需要综合考虑各个阶段中可能对治疗靶区定位产生的影响,误差分析结果可用来确定治疗的计划靶区。     

Stereotactic radiotherapy of extracranial targets: CT-simulation and accuracy of treatment in the stereotactic body frame.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluation of set-up accuracy and analysis of target reproducibility in the stereotactic body frame (SBF), designed by Blomgren and Lax from Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm. Different types of targets were analyzed for the risk of target deviation. The correlation of target deviation to bony structures was analyzed to evaluate the value of bones as reference structures for isocenter verification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 32 targets were treated in the SBF for primary or metastatic peripheral lung cancer, liver metastases, abdominal and pelvic tumor recurrences or bone metastases. Set-up accuracy and target mobility were evaluated by CT-simulation and port films. The contours of the target at isocenter level, bony structures and body outline were compared by matching the CT-slices for treatment planning and simulation using the stereotactic coordinates of the SBF as external reference system. The matching procedure was performed by using a 3D treatment planning program. RESULTS: Set-up accuracy represented by bony structures revealed standard deviations (SD) of 3.5 mm in longitudinal, 2.2 mm in anterior-posterior and 3.9 mm in lateral directions. Target reproducibility showed a SD of 4.4 mm in longitudinal, 3.4 mm ap and 3.3 mm in lateral direction prior to correction. Correlation of target deviation to bones ranged from 33% (soft tissue targets) to 100% (bones). CONCLUSION: A security margin of 5 mm for PTV definition is sufficient, if CT simulation is performed prior to each treatment to correct larger target deviations or set-up errors. Isocenter verification relative to bony structures is only safe for bony targets but not for soft tissue targets.     

Three-dimensional conformal setup (3D-CSU) of patients using the coordinate system provided by three internal fiducial markers and two orthogonal diagnostic X-ray systems in the treatment room

PURPOSE: To test the accuracy of a system for correcting for the rotational error of the clinical target volume (CTV) without having to reposition the patient using three fiducial markers and two orthogonal fluoroscopic images. We call this system "three-dimensional conformal setup" (3D-CSU). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three 2.0-mm gold markers are inserted into or adjacent to the CTV. On the treatment couch, the actual positions of the three markers are calculated based on two orthogonal fluoroscopies crossing at the isocenter of the linear accelerator. Discrepancy of the actual coordinates of gravity center of three markers from its planned coordinates is calculated. Translational setup error is corrected by adjustment of the treatment couch. The rotation angles (alpha, beta, gamma) of the coordinates of the actual CTV relative to the planned CTV are calculated around the lateral (x), craniocaudal (y), and anteroposterior (z) axes of the planned CTV. The angles of the gantry head, collimator, and treatment couch of the linear accelerator are adjusted according to the rotation of the actual coordinates of the tumor in relation to the planned coordinates. We have measured the accuracy of 3D-CSU using a static cubic phantom. RESULTS: The gravity center of the phantom was corrected within 0.9 +/- 0.3 mm (mean +/- SD), 0.4 +/- 0.2 mm, and 0.6 +/- 0.2 mm for the rotation of the phantom from 0-30 degrees around the x, y, and z axes, respectively, every 5 degrees. Dose distribution was shown to be consistent with the planned dose distribution every 10 degrees of the rotation from 0-30 degrees. The mean rotational error after 3D-CSU was -0.4 +/- 0.4 (mean +/- SD), -0.2 +/- 0.4, and 0.0 +/- 0.5 degrees around the x, y, and z axis, respectively, for the rotation from 0-90 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom studies showed that 3D-CSU is useful for performing rotational correction of the target volume without correcting the position of the patient on the treatment couch. The 3D-CSU will be clinically useful for tumors in structures such as paraspinal diseases and prostate cancers not subject to large internal organ motion.     

肺部肿瘤立体定向放疗技术中基于锥形束CT影像的摆位误差分析

背景与目的:准确的靶区位置是肺部肿瘤立体定向放疗的重要影响因素.该研究旨在分析在肺部肿瘤患者立体定向放疗中基于锥形束CT(cone-beam CT,CBCT)影像的摆位误差及其影响因素.方法:29例单发肺部恶性肿瘤行立体定向放疗的患者,每次放疗前行CBCT扫描,将得到的CBCT图像与定位CT图像匹配,获得前后、头脚和左右方向的摆位误差值,并计算临床靶区(clinical target volume,CTV)外扩至计划靶区(planning target volume,PTV)的边界.同时,还分析对可能影响摆位误差的临床参数等进行分层比较.结果:29例患者共获得155幅CBCT图像.考虑误差方向时前后、头脚和左右方向摆位误差分别为(-1.68±3.62)、(-1.34±3.90)和(0.36±2.15)mm,只考虑误差数值大小时分别为(3.16±2.42)、(3.29±2.48)和(1.74±1.30)mm.根据摆位误差得到CTV外扩至PTV的边界在前后、头脚和左右方向分别为9.6、10.0和5.3 mm.病灶位于周围的肺部肿瘤患者前后方向摆位误差更大(P=0.007),下肺病灶、右肺病灶、肺转移灶在头脚方向摆位误差更大(P=0.008、0.000和0.000).结论:肺部肿瘤患者放疗中的头脚和前后方向摆位误差较大,立体定向放疗需采用锥形束CT扫描、呼吸控制等技术以减少摆位误差.     

Experiences at the Paul Scherrer Institute with a remote patient positioning procedure for high-throughput proton radiation therapy

PURPOSE: To describe a remote positioning system for accurate and efficient proton radiotherapy treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To minimize positioning time in the treatment room (and thereby maximize beam utility), we have adopted a method for remote patient positioning, with patients positioned and imaged outside the treatment room. Using a CT scanner, positioning is performed using orthogonal topograms with the measured differences to the reference images being used to define daily corrections to the patient table in the treatment room. Possible patient movements during transport and irradiation were analyzed through periodic acquisition of posttreatment topograms. Systematic and random errors were calculated for this daily positioning protocol and for two off-line protocols. The potential time advantage of remote positioning was assessed by computer simulation. RESULTS: Applying the daily correction protocol, systematic errors calculated over all patients (n = 94) were below 0.6 mm, whereas random errors were below 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm, respectively, for bite-block and for mask immobilization. Differences between pre- and posttreatment images were below 2.8 mm (SD) in abdominal/pelvic region, and below 2.4 mm (SD) in the head. Retrospective data analysis for a subset of patients revealed that off-line protocols would be significantly less accurate. Computer simulations showed that remote positioning can increase patient throughput up to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a daily imaging and correction protocol based on a "remote" CT could reduce positioning errors to below 2.5 mm and increase beam utility in the treatment room. Patient motion between imaging and treatment were not significant.     

Patient positioning in prostate radiotherapy: is prone better than supine?

PURPOSE: To assess potential dose reductions to the rectum and to the bladder with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) to the prostate in the prone as compared with the supine position; and to retrospectively evaluate treatment position reproducibility without immobilization devices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients with localized prostate cancer underwent pelvic CT scans and 3D treatment planning in prone and supine positions. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were constructed for the clinical target volume, the rectum and the bladder for every patient in both treatment positions. "Comparative DVHs" (cDVHs) were defined for the rectum and for the bladder: cDVH was obtained by subtracting the organ volume receiving a given dose increment in the prone position from the corresponding value in the supine position. These values were then integrated over the entire dose range. The prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was 74 Gy using a 6-field technique. To evaluate reproducibility, portal films were subsequently reviewed in 12 patients treated prone and 10 contemporary patients treated supine (controls). No immobilization devices were used. Deviations in the anterio-posterior (X) and cranio-caudal (Y) axes were measured. Mean treatment position variation, total setup variation, systematic setup variation, and random setup variation were obtained. RESULTS: Prone position was associated with a higher dose to the rectum or to the bladder in 6 (33%) and 7 (39%) patients, respectively. A simultaneously higher dose to rectum and bladder was noted in 2 (11%) patients in prone and in 7 (39%) patients in supine. Rectal and bladder volumes were frequently larger in prone than in supine: mean prone/supine volume ratios were 1.21 (SD, 0.68) and 1.03 (SD, 1.32), respectively. In these cases cDVH analysis more often favored the prone position. Mean treatment position variation and total setup variation were similar for both prone and supine plans. A higher systematic setup variation was observed in prone positioning: 2.7 mm vs. 1.9 mm (X axis) and 4.1 mm vs. 2.2 mm (Y axis). The random variation was similar for both prone and supine: 4. 0 mm vs. 3.6 mm (X axis) and 3.7 mm vs. 3.6 mm (Y axis). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position 3D-CRT is frequently, but not always, associated with an apparent dose reduction to the rectum and/or to the bladder for prostate cancer patients. As suggested by the increased mean prone/supine rectal volume ratio, the advantage of prone positioning for the rectum may be artifactual, at least partly reflecting a position-dependent rectal air volume, which may significantly vary from treatment to treatment. In the absence of immobilization devices, daily setup reproducibility appears less accurate for the prone position, primarily due to systematic setup variations.     

Portal Imaging Protocol for Radical Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy Treatment of Prostate Cancer

Purpose: The use of escalated radiation doses to improve local control in conformal radiotherapy of prostatic cancer is becoming the focus of many centers. There are, however, increased side effects associated with increased radiotherapy doses that are believed to be dependent on the volume of normal tissue irradiated. For this reason, accurate patient positioning, CT planning with 3D reconstruction of volumes of interest, clear definition of treatment margins and verification of treatment fields are necessary components of the quality control for these procedures. In this study electronic portal images are used to (a) evaluate the magnitude and effect of the setup errors encountered in patient positioning techniques, and (b) verify the multileaf collimator (MLC) field patterns for each of the treatment fields.Methods and Materials: The Phase I volume, with a planning target volume (PTV) composed of the gross tumour volume (GTV) plus a 1.5 cm margin is treated conformally with a three-field plan (usually an anterior field and two lateral or oblique fields). A Phase II, with no margin around the GTV, is treated using two lateral and four oblique fields. Portal images are acquired and compared to digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) and/or simulator films during Phase I to assess the systematic (CT planning or simulator to treatment error) and the daily random errors. The match results from these images are used to correct for the systematic errors, if necessary, and to monitor the time trends and effectiveness of patient imobilization systems used during the Phase I treatment course. For the Phase II, portal images of an anterior and lateral field (larger than the treatment fields) matched to DRRs (or simulator images) are used to verify the isocenter position 1 week before start of Phase II. The Portal images are acquired for all the treatment fields on the first day to verify the MLC field patterns and archived for records. The final distribution of the setup errors was used to calculate modified dose–volume histograms (DVHs). This procedure was carried out on 36 prostate cancer patients, 12 with vacuum-molded (VacFix) bags for immobilization and 24 with no immobilization.Results: The systematic errors can be visualized and corrected for before the doses are increased above the conventional levels. The requirement for correction of these errors (e.g., 2.5 mm AP shift) was demonstrated, using DVHs, in the observed 10% increase in rectal volume receiving at least 60 Gy. The random (daily) errors observed showed the need for patient fixation devices when treating with reduced margins. The percentage of fields with displacements of ≤5.0 mm increased from 82 to 96% with the use of VacFix bags. The rotation of the pelvis is also minimized when the bags are used, with over 95% of the fields with rotations of ≤2.0° compared to 85% without. Currently, a combination of VacFix and thermoplastic casts is being investigated.Conclusion: The systematic errors can easily be identified and corrected for in the early stages of the Phase I treatment course. The time trends observed during the course of Phase I in conjunction with the isocenter verification at the start of Phase II give good prediction of the accuracy of the setup during Phase II, where visibility of identifiable structures is reduced in the small fields. The acquisition and inspection of the portal images for the small Phase II fields has been found to be an effective way of keeping a record of the MLC field patterns used. Incorporation of the distribution of the setup errors into the planning system also gives a clearer picture of how the prescribed dose was delivered. This information can be useful in dose–escalation studies in determining the relationship between the local control or morbidity rates and prescribed dose.