Intrafraction stability using full head mask for brain stereotactic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: We investigated the immobilization accuracy of a new type of thermoplastic mask-the Double Shell Positioning System (DSPS)-in terms of geometry and dose delivery. METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive patients with 1-5 brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were selected and divided into two groups. Patients were divided into two groups. One group of patients was immobilized by the DSPS (n = 9). Another group of patients was immobilized by a combination of the DSPS and a mouthpiece (n = 22). Patient repositioning was performed with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and six-degree of freedom couch. Additionally, CBCT images were acquired before and after treatment. Registration errors were analyzed with off-line review. The inter- and intrafractional setup errors, and planning target volume (PTV) margin were also calculated. Delivered doses were calculated by shifting the isocenter according to inter- and intrafractional setup errors. Dose differences of GTV D99% were compared between planned and delivered doses against the modified PTV margin of 1 mm. RESULTS: Interfractional setup errors associated with the mouthpiece group were significantly smaller than the translation errors in another group (p = 0.03). Intrafractional setup errors for the two groups were almost the same in all directions. PTV margins were 0.89 mm, 0.75 mm, and 0.90 mm for the DSPS combined with the mouthpiece in lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Similarly, PTV margins were 1.20 mm, 0.72 mm, and 1.37 mm for the DSPS in the lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Dose differences between planned and delivered doses were small enough to be within 1% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The geometric and dosimetric assessments revealed that the DSPS provides sufficient immobilization accuracy. Higher accuracy can be expected when the immobilization is combined with the use of a mouthpiece.

Dosimetric comparison of four-dimensional computed tomography based internal target volume against variations in respiratory motion during treatment between volumetric modulated arc therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.

This study focused on the dosimetric impact of variations in respiratory motion during lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Dosimetric comparisons between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) were performed using four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based internal target volumes (ITV). We created retrospective plans for ten patients with lung cancer who underwent SBRT using 3DCRT and VMAT techniques. A Delta4 Phantom + (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) was used to evaluate the dosimetric robustness of 4DCT-based ITV against variations in respiratory motion during treatment. We analyzed respiratory motion during treatment. Dose-volume histogram parameters were evaluated for the 95% dose (D95%) to the planning target volume (PTV) contoured on CT images obtained under free breathing. The correlations between patient respiratory parameters and dosimetric errors were also evaluated. In the phantom study, the average PTV D95% dose differences for all fractions were - 2.9 ± 4.4% (- 16.0 - 1.2%) and - 2.0 ± 2.8% (- 11.2 - 0.7%) for 3DCRT and VMAT, respectively. The average dose difference was < 3% for both 3DCRT and VMAT; however, in 5 out of 42 fractions in 3DCRT, the difference in PTV D95% was > 10%. Dosimetric errors were correlated with respiratory amplitude and velocity, and differences in respiratory amplitude between 4DCT and treatment days were the main factors causing dosimetric errors. The overall average dose error of the PTV D95% was small; however, both 3DCRT and VMAT cases exceeding 10% error were observed. Larger errors occurred with amplitude variation or baseline drift, indicating limited robustness of 4DCT-based ITV.

Intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy in off-isocenter target with SyncTraX FX4.

PURPOSE: We investigated the localization accuracy of the off-isocenter targets using SyncTraX FX4, a new image registration device. METHODS: In a phantom study, we used a MultiMet-WL Cube with metal targets at different distances from the isocenter. Image registrations were performed with SyncTraX and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Nineteen fields with different gantry, collimator, and couch angles were delivered to each target. Localization errors of the off-isocenter targets were then evaluated. In a clinical study, localization accuracy was evaluated for 32 patients. First, image registration was performed using SyncTraX, and the accuracy of patient positioning was evaluated using CBCT. Next, positioning corrections were performed for intracranial setup errors exceeding the threshold (0.5 mm/0.5°) in each field. Finally, total setup uncertainty was evaluated using CBCT. Differences in dosimetric errors from planned doses between no patient positioning corrections during treatment and positioning corrections with SyncTraX were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the phantom study, the positioning accuracy on targets up to 7 cm from the isocenter was within 1 mm. In the clinical practice, the localization accuracies of SyncTraX were 0.35 ± 0.39 mm, 0.30 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.03 ± 0.27 mm in the lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Post-treatment setup errors were reduced by correcting intrafractional setup errors with SyncTraX during treatment. Positioning corrections with SyncTraX reduced the maximum dosimetric error from 1.6% to 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: SyncTraX provides satisfactory localization accuracy for the off-isocenter targets within 7 cm. SyncTraX reduce dosimetric errors caused by intrafractional setup errors during treatment.