Prospective dual-surrogate validation study of periodic imaging during treatment for accurately monitoring intrafraction motion of prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of this prospective study is to validate the use of periodic imaging during treatment with a fiducial marker detection algorithm using radiofrequency transponders for prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment for radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten male patients were enrolled in this study and treated for prostate cancer with implanted electromagnetic monitoring beacons. We evaluated the accuracy and limitations of Intrafraction Motion Review (IMR) by comparing the known locations of the beacons using the electromagnetic monitoring system to the position data reported from IMR images. RESULTS: A total of 4054 images were taken during treatment. The difference in vector magnitude of the two methods is centered around zero (mean: 0.03 cm, SD: 0.16 cm) and Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) is 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98, 1) overall. The Euclidean distance between the two methods was close to zero (median: 0.09 cm, IQR: 0.06, 0.14 cm). The difference in distance between any two markers was centered around zero (mean: 0.01 cm, SD: 0.12 cm) and Lin's CCC is 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98) overall. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the algorithm for detected markers within the 2D images is comparable to electromagnetic monitoring for fiducial identification when detected. IMR could provide an alternate solution for patients with contraindications of use of an electromagnetic monitoring system and a cost effective alternative to the acquisition of an additional system for patient monitoring, but does not provide data for pre-treatment set-up verification and real-time 3D positioning during treatment.

Quality assurance for a six degrees-of-freedom table using a 3D printed phantom.

PURPOSE: To establish a streamlined end-to-end test of a 6 degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) robotic table using a 3D printed phantom for periodic quality assurance. METHODS: A 3D printed phantom was fabricated with translational and rotational offsets and an imbedded central ball-bearing (BB). The phantom underwent each step of the radiation therapy process: CT simulation in a straight orientation, plan generation using the treatment planning software, setup to offset marks at the linac, registration and corrected 6DoF table adjustments via hidden target test, delivery of a Winston-Lutz test to the BB, and verification of table positioning via field and laser lights. The registration values, maximum total displacement of the combined Winston-Lutz fields, and a pass or fail criterion of the laser and field lights were recorded. The quality assurance process for each of the three linacs were performed for the first 30 days. RESULTS: Within a 95% confidence interval, the overall uncertainty values for both translation and rotation were below 1.0 mm and 0.5° for each linac respectively. When combining the registration values and other uncertainties for all three linacs, the average deviations were within 2.0 mm and 1.0° of the designed translation and rotation offsets of the 3D print respectively. For all three linacs, the maximum total deviation for the Winston-Lutz test did not exceed 1.0 mm. Laser and light field verification was within tolerance every day for all three linacs given the latest guidance documentation for table repositioning. CONCLUSION: The 3D printer is capable of accurately fabricating a quality assurance phantom for 6DoF positioning verification. The end-to-end workflow allows for a more efficient test of the 6DoF mechanics while including other important tests needed for routine quality assurance.

Technical Report: TG-142 compliant and comprehensive quality assurance tests for respiratory gating.

PURPOSE: To develop and establish a comprehensive gating commissioning and quality assurance procedure in compliance with TG-142. METHODS: Eight Varian TrueBeam Linacs were used for this study. Gating commissioning included an end-to-end test and baseline establishment. The end-to-end test was performed using a CIRS dynamic thoracic phantom with a moving cylinder inside the lung, which was used for carrying both optically simulated luminescence detectors (OSLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 films while the target is moving, for a point dose check and 2D profile check. In addition, baselines were established for beam-on temporal delay and calibration of the surrogate, for both megavoltage (MV) and kilovoltage (kV) beams. A motion simulation device (MotionSim) was used to provide periodic motion on a platform, in synchronizing with a surrogate motion. The overall accuracy and uncertainties were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The OSLD readings were within 5% compared to the planned dose (within measurement uncertainty) for both phase and amplitude gated deliveries. Film results showed less than 3% agreement to the predicted dose with a standard sinusoid motion. The gate-on temporal accuracy was averaged at 139±10 ms for MV beams and 92±11 ms for kV beams. The temporal delay of the surrogate motion depends on the motion speed and was averaged at 54.6±3.1 ms for slow, 24.9±2.9 ms for intermediate, and 23.0±20.1 ms for fast speed. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive gating commissioning procedure was introduced for verifying the output accuracy and establishing the temporal accuracy baselines with respiratory gating. The baselines are needed for routine quality assurance tests, as suggested by TG-142.