Correction of systematic setup errors in prostate radiation therapy: how many images to perform?

The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based off-line setup correction protocol for systematic errors in prostate radiation therapy. Daily orthogonal electronic portal images were acquired from 30 patients. Field displacements were measured in the medial-lateral (ML), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions for each treatment fraction. The off-line protocol corrects the mean field displacement found from n consecutive images, starting at a particular fraction of treatment, with a fixed tolerance level. Simulations were performed with the measured data to determine (1) how many images (n) should be averaged to determine the systematic error; (2) on which treatment fraction should the protocol be initiated; and (3) what tolerance level should be applied to determine whether the patient position should be corrected. Uncorrected systematic errors in the ML, SI, and AP directions were (mean position +/- 1 standard deviation [SD]): -0.7 +/- 2.2 mm, -1.5 +/- 1.3 mm, and 1.4 +/- 2.6 mm, respectively. Random errors (1 SD and range) were 1.9 mm (1.3 - 3.3), 1.5 mm (0. - 4.1), and 1.8 mm (1.0-2.6), respectively. A correction based on a single image taken on the first fraction actually increased the systematic errors in the ML and SI directions compared with no correction. More accurate correction of systematic errors was achieved with increasing number of images averaged, with only small benefit after 5 images. With fewer images averaged, delaying the start of the protocol resulted in more accurate correction because of the influence of unrepresentative positions at early fractions. The number of corrections made on patients with small (< 2 mm) systematic errors was minimized for tolerance values of 2 mm and n > or = 5 images averaged. The optimal off-line setup correction protocol would be to shift the patient by the mean displacement of the first 5 portal images of a radical course of radiation therapy. A small tolerance level should be utilized with 2 mm giving good accuracy with minimal unnecessary shifts.

Consistency in electronic portal imaging registration in prostate cancer radiation treatment verification.

BACKGROUND: A protocol of electronic portal imaging (EPI) registration for the verification of radiation treatment fields has been implemented at our institution. A template is generated using the reference images, which is then registered with the EPI for treatment verification. This study examines interobserver consistency among trained radiation therapists in the registration and verification of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 consecutive patients with prostate cancer undergoing EBRT were analyzed. The EPIs from the initial 10 fractions were registered independently by 6 trained radiation therapist observers. For each fraction, an anterior-posterior (AP or PA) and left lateral (Lat) EPIs were generated and registered with the reference images. Two measures of displacement for the AP EPI in the superior-inferior (SI) and right left (RL) directions and two measures of displacement for the Lat EPI in the AP and SI directions were prospectively recorded. A total of 2400 images and 4800 measures were analyzed. Means and standard deviations, as well as systematic and random errors were calculated for each observer. Differences between observers were compared using the chi-square test. Variance components analysis was used to evaluate how much variance is attributed to the observers. Time trends were estimated using repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Inter-observer variation expressed as the standard deviation of the six observers' measurements within each image were 0.7, 1.0, 1.7 and 1.4 mm for APLR, APSI, LatAP and LatSI respectively. Variance components analysis showed that the variation attributed to the observers was small compared to variation due to the images. On repeated measure analysis, time trends were apparent only for the APLR and LatSI measurements. Their magnitude however was small. CONCLUSION: No clinically important systematic observer effect or time trends were identified in the registration of EPI by the radiation therapist observers in this study. These findings are useful in the documentation of consistency and reliability in the quality assurance of treatment verification of EBRT for prostate cancer.