Validation of Acuros for total body irradiation at extended distance.

PURPOSE: Standardized and accurately reported doses are essential in conventional total body irradiation (TBI), especially lung doses. This study evaluates the accuracy of the Acuros algorithm in predicting doses for extended-distance TBI. METHODS: Measurements and calculations were done with both 6 and 18 MV. Tissue Maximum Ratio (TMR), output and off axis ratios (OAR) were measured at 200 and 500 cm source to detector distance and compared to Acuros calculated values. Two end-to-end tests were carried out, one with an in-house phantom (solid water and Styrofoam) with inserted ion chambers and the other was with the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) TBI anthropomorphic phantom equipped with TLDs. The end-to-end test was done for 6 and 18 MV both with and without lung blocks. The source to midplane distance for both phantoms were at 518 and 508 cm respectively. Lung blocks were placed at the phantom surface and a beam spoiler was positioned 30 cm from the surface of the phantoms as per our clinical set up. RESULTS: The agreement between measured and calculated TMR, output and off axis ratios for both 6 and 18 MV were within 2%. Ion chamber measurements in both the Styrofoam and solid water for both energies carried out with and without lung blocks were within 2% of calculated values. TLD measured doses for both 6 and 18 MV in the IROC phantom were within 5% of calculated doses which is within the uncertainty of the TLD measurement. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the clinical beam model for Acuros 16.1 commissioned at standard clinical distances is capable of calculating doses accurately at extended distances up to 500 cm.

Initial clinical evaluation of a novel combined biometric, radio-frequency identification, and surface imaging system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and characterize the overall clinical functionality and workflow of the newly released Varian Identify system (version 2.3). METHODS: Three technologies included in the Varian Identify system were evaluated: patient biometric authentication, treatment accessory device identification, and surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) function. Biometric authentication employs a palm vein reader. Treatment accessory device verification utilizes two technologies: device presence via Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and position via optical markers. Surface-guidance was evaluated on both patient orthopedic setup at loading position and surface matching and tracking at treatment isocenter. A phantom evaluation of the consistency and accuracy for Identify SGRT function was performed, including a system consistency test, a translational shift and rotational accuracy test, a pitch and roll accuracy test, a continuous recording test, and an SGRT vs Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) agreement test. RESULTS: 201 patient authentications were verified successfully with palm reader. All patient treatment devices were successfully verified for their presences and positions (indexable devices). The patient real-time orthopedic pose was successfully adjusted to match the reference surface captured at simulation. SGRT-reported shift consistency against couch readout was within (0.1 mm, 0.030). The shift accuracy was within (0.3 mm, 0.10). In continuous recording mode, the maximum variation was 0.2 ± 0.12 mm, 0.030 ± 0.020. The difference between Identify SGRT offset and CBCT was within (1 mm, 10). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical evaluation confirms that Identify accurately functions for patient palm identification and patient treatment device presence and position verification. Overall SGRT consistency and accuracy was within (1 mm, 10), within the 2 mm criteria of AAPM TG302.

Technical note: Clinical evaluation of a newly released surface-guided radiation therapy system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that a significant reduction of mean heart dose and left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose can be achieved through the use of DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. Surface-guided DIBH has been widely adopted during the last decade, and there are mainly three commercially available SGRT systems. The reports of the performance of a newly released SGRT system for DIBH application are currently very limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a newly released SGRT system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. METHODS: Twenty-five left breast cancer patients treated with DIBH utilizing Varian's Identify system were included (total 493-fraction treatments). Four aspects of the clinical performance were evaluated: Identify offsets of free breathing post patient setup from tattoos, Identify offsets during DIBH, Identify agreement with radiographic ports during DIBH, and DIBH reference surface re-capture post patient shifts. The systematic and random errors of free breathing Identify offsets post patient setup were calculated for each patient, as well as for offsets during DIBH. Radiographic ports were taken when the patient's DIBH position was within the clinical tolerance of (± 0.3 cm, ± 30 ), and these were then compared with treatment field DRRs. If the ports showed that the patient alignment did not agree with the DRRs within 3 mm, a patient shift was performed. A new reference surface was captured and verification ports were taken. RESULTS: The all-patient average systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for free breathing were within (0.4 cm, 1.50 ) post tattoo setup. The maximum per-patient systematic and random errors were (1.1 cm, 6.20 ) and (0.9 cm, 20 ), and the maximum amplitude of Identify offsets were (2.59 cm, 90 ). All 493-fraction DIBH treatments were delivered and successfully guided by the Identify SGRT system. The systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for DIBH were within (0.2 cm, 2.30 ). Seven patients needed re-captured surface references due to surface variation or position shifts based on the ports. All patient DIBH verification ports guided by Identify were approved by attending physicians. CONCLUSION: This evaluation showed that the Identify system performed effectively for surface-guided patient setup and surface-guided DIBH imaging and treatment delivery. The feature of color-coded real-time patient surface matching feedback facilitated the evaluation of the patient alignment accuracy and the adjustment of the patient position to match the reference.

An evaluation of the use of DirectSPR images for proton planning in the RayStation treatment planning software.

An important source of uncertainty in proton therapy treatment planning is the assignment of stopping-power ratio (SPR) from CT data. A commercial product is now available that creates an SPR map directly from dual-energy CT (DECT). This paper investigates the use of this new product in proton treatment planning and compares the results to the current method of assigning SPR based on a single-energy CT (SECT). Two tissue surrogate phantoms were CT scanned using both techniques. The SPRs derived from single-energy CT and by DirectSPR™ were compared to measured values. SECT-based values agreed with measurements within 4% except for low density lung and high density bone, which differed by 13% and 8%, respectively. DirectSPR™ values were within 2% of measured values for all tissues studied. Both methods were also applied to scanned containers of three types of animal tissue, and the expected range of protons of two different energies was calculated in the treatment planning system and compared to the range measured using a multi-layer ion chamber. The average difference between range measurements and calculations based on SPR maps from dual- and single-energy CT, respectively, was 0.1 mm (0.07%) versus 2.2 mm (1.5%). Finally, a phantom was created using a layer of various tissue surrogate plugs on top of a 2D ion chamber array. Dose measurements on this array were compared to predictions using both single- and dual-energy CTs and SPR maps. While standard gamma pass rates for predictions based on DECT-derived SPR maps were slightly higher than those based on single-energy CT, the differences were generally modest for this measurement setup. This study showed that SPR maps created by the commercial product from dual-energy CT can successfully be used in RayStation to generate proton dose distributions and that these predictions agree well with measurements.

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

PURPOSE: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods. RESULTS: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%). CONCLUSIONS: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of changes in shoulder position on target coverage for spine SBRT to metastases in the lower cervical spine region.

For patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastases in the cervical area, a thermoplastic mask is the usual immobilization technique. This project investigates the impact of shoulder position variability on target coverage for such cases. Eight HN patients treated in a suite equipped with a CT-on-rails system (CTOR) were randomly chosen. Of these, three were treated with shoulder depressors. For each patient, their planning CT was used to contour spine targets at the C5, C6 and C7 levels for which two VMAT plans were developed to deliver 18 Gy to each target per the RTOG 0631 protocol. One plan used full arcs while the other used avoidance sectors around the lateral positions. For each patient, IGRT CTOR images were used to recalculate doses that would have been delivered from these plans. Target coverage and dose to the spinal cord were compared for four scenarios: full and partial arcs, with or without depressors. A Dunn test showed significant differences between groups with and without shoulder depressors, but not between those with full versus partial arcs. For most of the investigated cases, the coverage ended up being higher than planned due to the shoulder position being inferior at treatment compared to simulation. In some cases, this led to higher spinal cord doses than allowed per protocol. The results of this study confirm that, when treating lower cervical spine lesions with SBRT, special care should be taken to ensure that the shoulders are positioned as they were during planning CT acquisition.

Seismic reinforcement of a linac installation.

The local building requirements to secure medical equipment in seismically active areas in the United States are based on recommendations of the American Society of Civil Engineers. In our institution we have recently acquired new linear accelerators, one of which had to be installed in an existing vault and one in a new vault. Since we are in a seismic active area, changes in the local code required us to start placing the new linacs seismically stable. Here, we describe the necessary steps taken to ensure a seismically sound installation of our linacs. For the linac installation to be seismically stable, the linac base frame has to be seismically fixed into the vault floor. The installation of a new linac into an existing vault requires verification of a structurally sound base frame. Knowledge of the previously applied fixation of such is needed and exploratory removal of grouted floor helped in the verification. Understanding the additional load requirements for the locality allows to account for the existing fixation and can potentially reduce the work needed to achieve seismic fixation requirements. For a prospective seismic installation the new linac base frame can be directly installed with the necessary strength. In addition the actual workflow is straight forward and vendor recommendations can be used. In both cases the vendor provided seismic calculations serve as baseline from which a facility should be work from. It is the facilities task to verify the correct installation of a linac in their specific location. An understanding of the seismic landscape can facilitate an appropriate installation at minimal additional cost.

Prevention of Radiation Therapy Treatment Deviations by a Novel Combined Biometric, Radiofrequency Identification, and Surface Imaging System.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of Varian Identify, a novel combined radiofrequency identification, biometric and surface-matching technology, on its potential for patient safety and prevention of radiation therapy treatment deviations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred eight radiation therapy treatment deviation reports at our facility over the past 8 years were analyzed. Three major categories were defined based on the time point of occurrence: physician order deviations (19.4%), treatment-planning deviations (24.1%), and machine treatment deviations (56.5%). The impact of Identify on potential prevention of machine treatment deviations was analyzed. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed on the 5 most frequently occurring errors preventable with Identify. Safety analysis of the Identify system was reported based on 3.5 years of clinical data post-Identify system installation on 3 treatment vaults. RESULTS: Of the 61 machine treatment deviations, 47 (77%) were interpreted as being preventable by using Identify. Our failure mode and effects analysis showed reductions in all risk priority numbers post-Identify application. Safety analysis of the Identify system from our direct observation that for approximately 7 cumulative years of Identify use in 3 different treatment vaults, where 9 deviations would have been expected to occur over this combined period, zero machine treatment events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of Identify biometric, radiofrequency identification, and surface-matching technologies was observed to enable an effective process for enhancing safety and efficiency of radiation therapy treatment. A significant reduction in machine-related deviations was observed.

FMEA occurrence values for four failure modes occurring using look-up tables for dose calculations.

PURPOSE: For a number of different treatment types [such as Total Body Irradiation (TBI), etc.] most institutions utilize tables from commissioned databooks to perform the dose calculations. Each time one manually looks up data from a large table and then copies the numbers for a manual calculation, there is potential for errors. While a second check effectively mitigates the potential error from such calculations, information regarding the frequency and nature of such mistakes is important to develop protocols and workflows that avoid related errors. METHODS: Five years' worth of TBI calculations were reviewed. Each calculation was re-performed and evaluated against the original calculation and original second check. Any discrepancies were noted and those discrepancies were checked to see if the number was the result of misreading from the look-up table, a typo, copying/skipping partially redundant steps, or rounding/avoiding interpolation. The number of calculations that contained these various types of discrepancies was tallied and percentages representing the frequency of said discrepancies were derived. RESULTS: All of the discrepancies only resulted in a monitor unit (MU) calculation difference of <1.7%. Typos, looking up wrong values from tables, rounding/avoiding interpolation, and skipping steps occurred in 10.4% ( ± 3.1%), 6.3% ( ± 2.5%), 53.1% ( ± 5.1%), and 4.2% ( ± 2.0%) of MU calculations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While all of the discrepancies only resulted in a monitor unit (MU) calculation difference of <1.7%, this review shows how frequently various discrepancies can occur. Typos and rounding/avoiding interpolation are the steps most likely to potentially cause a miscalculation of MU. To avoid direct human interaction on such a large repetitive scale, creating forms that calculate MU automatically from initial measurement data would reduce the incidences that numbers are written/transcribed and eliminate the need to look up data in a table, thus reducing the chance for error.

Evaluation of the effects of implementing a diode transmission device into the clinical workflow.

PURPOSE: This work investigated effects of implementing the Delta4 Discover diode transmission detector into the clinical workflow. METHODS: PDD and profile scans were completed with and without the Discover for a number of photon beam energies. Transmission factors were determined for all beam energies and included in Eclipse TPS to account for the attenuation of the Discover. A variety of IMRT plans were delivered to a Delta4 Phantom+ with and without the Discover to evaluate the Discover's effects on IMRT QA. An imaging QA phantom was used to assess the detector's effects on MV image quality. OSLDs placed on the Phantom+ were used to determine the detector's effects on superficial dose. RESULTS: The largest effect on PDDs after dmax was 0.5%. The largest change in beam profile symmetry and flatness was 0.2% and 0.1%, respectively. An average difference in gamma passing rates (2%/2 mm) of 0.2% was observed between plans that did not include the Discover in the measurement and calculation to plans that did include the Discover in the measurement and calculation. The Discover did not significantly change the MV image quality, and the largest observed increase in the relative superficial dose when the Discover was present was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: The effects the Discover has on the linac beam were found to be minimal. The device can be implemented into the clinic without the need to alter the TPS beam modeling, other than accounting for the device's attenuation. However, a careful workflow review to implement the Discover should be completed.

Comparison of transperineal ultrasound image guidance technique to transabdominal technique for prostate radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound (US) guidance of the prostate has long been conducted using a transabdominal (TA) approach. More recently, a transperineal (TP) approach has been made available for image guidance. Our aim was to determine if both methods produced similar alignments within the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized two clinical US image guidance (IG) systems (Elekta Clarity and Best BAT). The B-mode Acquisition and Targeting USIG system is a bi-planar, so-called 2.5D USIG system, that is acquired TA. Clarity is a 3D US system that generates a volumetric 3D US data set and US-derived IG contours that are coregistered to the planning CT images. The probe is oriented in the sagittal plane against the perineum (TP). After positioning the patient for treatment using the TP USIG, we maintained the position defined by Clarity tracking and then acquired a TA-based USIG. The two US-based methods of localizing the prostate (TA vs TP) were compared via Bland-Altman (BA) statistical analysis to determine if there was alignment agreement between methods. RESULTS: The BA test for all 101 patients, 2093 fractions resulted in 95% confidence intervals (upper and lower limits of the BA test) of 0.6 mm in LR, 0.9 mm in AP and 1.0 mm in SI. The bias between the two systems was calculated as 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03 mm in LR, AP, and SI. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems resulted in statistically equivalent targeting positions for the prostate. Because of the unique intrafraction, real-time motion tracking capability of the TP system, this solution represents a unique extension to the previously reported clinical benefits of a TA approach by providing assurance of the prostate remaining in the treatment field during beam-on.

Using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to generate an initial plan check checklist for improved safety in radiation treatment.

PURPOSE: To apply failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to generate an effective and efficient initial physics plan checklist. METHODS: A team of physicists, dosimetrists, and therapists was setup to reconstruct the workflow processes involved in the generation of a treatment plan beginning from simulation. The team then identified possible failure modes in each of the processes. For each failure mode, the severity (S), frequency of occurrence (O), and the probability of detection (D) was assigned a value and the risk priority number (RPN) was calculated. The values assigned were based on TG 100. Prior to assigning a value, the team discussed the values in the scoring system to minimize randomness in scoring. A local database of errors was used to help guide the scoring of frequency. RESULTS: Twenty-seven process steps and 50 possible failure modes were identified starting from simulation to the final approved plan ready for treatment at the machine. Any failure mode that scored an average RPN value of 20 or greater was deemed "eligible" to be placed on the second checklist. In addition, any failure mode with a severity score value of 4 or greater was also considered for inclusion in the checklist. As a by-product of this procedure, safety improvement methods such as automation and standardization of certain processes (e.g., dose constraint checking, check tools), removal of manual transcription of treatment-related information as well as staff education were implemented, although this was not the team's original objective. Prior to the implementation of the new FMEA-based checklist, an in-service for all the second checkers was organized to ensure further standardization of the process. CONCLUSION: The FMEA proved to be a valuable tool for identifying vulnerabilities in our workflow and processes in generating a treatment plan and subsequently a new, more effective initial plan checklist was created.

Preliminary clinical experience with Calypso anchored beacons for tumor tracking in lung SBRT.

PURPOSE: To present our preliminary experience with the recently released Calypso lung beacons to track lung tumor location during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Five recent lung SBRT patients had Calypso lung beacons implanted for tumor tracking during treatment. Beacons were placed by a pulmonologist using fluoroscopic navigation within 1 week prior to planning four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. Patients were immobilized in a full-body double-vacuum bag. For the first three patients, a verification 4DCT was obtained prior to the first fraction with the patient in the treatment position to assess both beacon migration and motion of tumor and beacons relative to planning day. For each treatment fraction, Calypso was used to position the patient. A verification cone-beam CT (CBCT) confirmed the Calypso-defined target position was appropriate. Real-time Calypso tracking information was also acquired and compared to an action level that was used to determine if the tumor migrated outside of the planning target volume. RESULTS: For four patients, the implant procedure was well tolerated, with average CBCT-based shifts being within 0.2 mm of the shifts reported by Calypso at the time of imaging. The other patient had a small pneumothorax due to very peripheral tumor location and experienced beacon migration. However, the patient quickly recovered from the pneumothorax, and after deactivating that beacon, motion tracking was possible throughout his treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All patients were successfully treated with SBRT using the newly released Calypso lung beacons, with initial positioning confirmed by this clinic's current clinical standard of CBCT. The system allowed us to validate, with real-time confirmation, that the planned internal target volumes were appropriate to each day's extent of actual tumor motion. An efficient and effective workflow for utilizing the new lung beacons for SBRT treatments was developed.

A systematic evaluation of the error detection abilities of a new diode transmission detector.

Transmission detectors meant to measure every beam delivered on a linear accelerator are now becoming available for monitoring the quality of the dose distribution delivered to the patient daily. The purpose of this work is to present results from a systematic evaluation of the error detection capabilities of one such detector, the Delta4 Discover. Existing patient treatment plans were modified through in-house-developed software to mimic various delivery errors that have been observed in the past. Errors included shifts in multileaf collimator leaf positions, changing the beam energy from what was planned, and a simulation of what would happen if the secondary collimator jaws did not track with the leaves as they moved. The study was done for simple 3D plans, static gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy plans as well as dynamic arc and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Baseline plans were delivered with both the Discover device and the Delta4 Phantom+ to establish baseline gamma pass rates. Modified plans were then delivered using the Discover only and the predicted change in gamma pass rate, as well as the detected leaf positions were evaluated. Leaf deviations as small as 0.5 mm for a static three-dimensional field were detected, with this detection limit growing to 1 mm with more complex delivery modalities such as VMAT. The gamma pass rates dropped noticeably once the intentional leaf error introduced was greater than the distance-to-agreement criterion. The unit also demonstrated the desired drop in gamma pass rates of at least 20% when jaw tracking was intentionally disabled and when an incorrect energy was used for the delivery. With its ability to find errors intentionally introduced into delivered plans, the Discover shows promise of being a valuable, independent error detection tool that should serve to detect delivery errors that can occur during radiotherapy treatment.

Calculation of delivered composite dose from Calypso tracking data for prostate cancer: And subsequent evaluation of reasonable treatment interruption tolerance limits.

PURPOSE: In this study we calculate composite dose delivered to the prostate by using the Calypso tracking -data- stream acquired during patient treatment in our clinic. We evaluate the composite distributions under multiple simulated Calypso tolerance level schemes and then recommend a tolerance level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven Calypso-localized prostate cancer patients treated in our clinic were selected for retrospective analysis. Two different IMRT treatment plans, with prostate PTV margins of 5 and 3 mm respectively, were computed for each patient. A delivered composite dose distribution was computed from Calypso tracking data for each plan. Additionally, we explored the dosimetric implications for "worst case" scenarios by assuming that the prostate position was located at one of the eight extreme corners of a 3 or 5 mm "box." To characterize plan quality under each of the studied scenarios, we recorded the maximum, mean, and minimum doses and volumetric coverage for prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: Calculated composite dose distributions were very similar to the original plan for all patients. The difference in maximum, mean, and minimum doses as well as volumetric coverage for the prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum were all < 4.0% of prescription dose. Even for worst scenario cases, the results show acceptable isodose distribution, with the exception for the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin with a 5 mm position tolerance scheme. CONCLUSIONS: Calculated composite dose distributions show that the vast majority of dosimetric metrics agreed well with the planned dose (within 2%). With significant/detrimental deviations from the planned dose only occurring with the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin and 5 mm position tolerance, the 3 mm position tolerance strategy appears reasonable, confirming that further reducing prostate PTV margins to 3 mm is possible when using Calypso with a position tolerance of 3 mm.

An evaluation of the consistency of shifts reported by three different systems for non-coplanar treatments.

Treatment of intra-cranial lesions sometimes requires a non-coplanar beam configuration. One of the most commonly used IGRT modalities, kV conebeam CT, cannot typically be used when large couch rotations are introduced. However, multiple other systems allow for imaging/tracking the patient for such situations. This work compares shift consistency from three independent systems, namely Varian's Advanced Imaging, Brainlab's Exactrac and Varian's OSMS, all installed on the same linear accelerator. After a phantom was first positioned using conebeam CT, the three systems were used to determine shifts at different couch positions. This was done with and without intentional shifts inserted in the original phantom position. Results show that the difference in shifts between the three systems was never more than 0.7 mm (average of 0.2 mm, standard deviation of 0.2 mm). These results confirm that all three systems are equivalent to within 1 mm and may potentially be uses interchangeably, especially in cases where the PTV margin is on the order of 1 mm.

A Ballistics Examination of Firearm Injuries Involving Breast Implants.

This ballistics study examines whether saline breast implants can decrease tissue penetration in firearm injuries. We hypothesize that the fluid column within a saline breast implant can alter bullet velocity and/or bullet pattern of mushrooming. The two experimental groups included saline implants with 7.4 cm projection and a no implant group. The experimental design allowed the bullet to pass-through an implant and into ballistics gel (n = 10) or into ballistics gel without passage through an implant (n = 11). Shots that passed through an implant had 20.6% decreased penetration distance when compared to shots that did not pass-through an implant; this difference was statistically significant (31.9 cm vs. 40.2 cm, p < 0.001). Implant group bullets mushroomed prior to gel entry, but the no implant group mushroomed within the gel. Bullet passage through a saline breast implant results in direct bullet velocity reduction and earlier bullet mushrooming; this causes significantly decreased ballistics gel penetration.

Comparison of 2 transabdominal ultrasound image guidance techniques for prostate and prostatic fossa radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Our clinic is a long-term user of a first-generation transabdominal (TA) biplanar (2.5-dimensional [2.5D]) ultrasound image guidance (USIG) system for prostate cancer treatments. We are also an early adopter and development partner for a new, second-generation, fully 3D USIG system that allows for volumetric TA localization of the prostate. This new system has been evaluated at our institution by direct comparison with the previously established first-generation TA method for prostate alignment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We compared the 2 TA-USIG methods on the same subjects and same treatment sessions. A total of 1428 fractions delivered to 41 treated patients (16 intact prostate, 25 fossa) were analyzed regarding the agreement of alignments between the 2 US positioning systems. Patients were first aligned to tattoos using treatment room lasers. TA-USIG using the 3D system was then performed to align contours derived during the computed tomography simulation process to their corresponding daily US-visualized structures. The US-3D system image guidance shifts were performed and recorded as the "initial" shifts. A 2.5D system alignment was then immediately performed using the same computed tomography derived reference contours and the indicated shifts, relative to the 3D system, were recorded as the difference between the 2 alignment methods. RESULTS: The average difference between the 2 TA-USIG alignments for all patients was 0.4 ± 0.7 mm, 0.7 ± 0.9 mm, and 0.5 ± 0.9 mm in the left-right, anteroposterior, and superoinferior directions, respectively. No significant difference in system agreement between intact prostate versus fossa patients was observed. CONCLUSION: Our comparison of an established 2.5D USIG method with a newer, fully 3D approach for prostate alignment of 41 different patients (1428 fractions) shows excellent agreement with each other, despite the nontrivial difference in imaging approaches. This shows that the 2 specific USIG approaches yield results that are consistent with each other, and that the USIG modality yields consistent results within the modality.

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

We investigate the difference between surface matching and target matching for pelvic radiation image guidance. The uniqueness of our study is that all patients have multiple CT-on-rails (CTOR) scans to compare to corresponding AlignRT images. Ten patients receiving pelvic radiation were enrolled in this study. Two simulation CT scans were performed in supine and prone positions for each patient. Body surface contours were generated in treatment planning system and exported to AlignRT to serve as reference images. During treatment day, the patient was aligned to treatment isocenter with room lasers, and then scanned with both CTOR and AlignRT. Image-guidance shifts were calculated for both modalities by com-parison to the simulation CT and the differences between them were analyzed for both supine and prone positions, respectively. These procedures were performed for each patient once per week for five weeks. The difference of patient displace-ment between AlignRT and CTOR was analyzed. For supine position, five patients had an average difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR along any direction (vertical, longitudinal, and lateral) greater than 0.5 cm, and one patient greater than 1 cm. Four patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. For prone position, seven patients had an average difference greater than 0.5 cm, and three patients greater than 1 cm. Nine patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. The difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR was greater for the prone position than for the supine position. For the patients studied here, surface matching does not appear to be an advisable image-guidance approach for pelvic radiation therapy for patients with either supine or prone position. There appears to be a potential for large alignment discrepancies (up to 2.25 cm) between surface matching and target matching.