MV CBCT based assessment of setup uncertainties and planning target volume margin in head and neck cancer.

Background: Set-up errors are an undesirable part of the radiation treatment process. The goal of online imaging is to increase treatment accuracy by reducing the set-up errors. This study aimed to determine the daily variation of patient set-up uncertainties and planning target volume (PTV) margins for head and neck cancer patients using pre-treatment verification by mega voltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT). Materials and methods: This retrospective study was internal record base of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy at our institution since the implementation of HalcyonTM 2.0 machine (Varian, US). Errors collected from each patient setup were recorded and evaluated for each direction [medio-lateral (ML), supero-inferior (SI), antero-posterior (AP)] discretely. For each patient, the systematic error (∑) and random error (σ) were collected. Clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was calculated using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62 ( PTV margin = ( Σ 2 + σ 2 ) ), Stroom's (PTV margin = 2∑ + 0.7σ), and Van Herk's (PTV margin = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ) formula. Results: A total of 7900 pre-treatment CBCT scans of 301 patients were analyzed and a total of 23,000 error measurements in the ML, SI, and AP directions were recorded. For all of our H&N cancer patients, the CTV to PTV margin, calculated from the van Herk formula for the head and neck patients was 0.49 mm in the anteroposterior axis. Conclusions: An isometric PTV margin of 5 mm may be considered safe if daily imaging is not being done. In case daily online pretreatment imaging is being utilized, further reduction of PTV margin is possible.

How much rotational error is clinically acceptable for single-isocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT treatment on halcyon ring delivery system (RDS)?

PURPOSE: SBRT treatment of two separate lung lesions via single-isocenter/multi-target (SIMT) plan on Halcyon RDS could improve patient comfort, compliance, patient throughput, and clinic efficiency. However, aligning two separate lung lesions synchronously via a single pre-treatment CBCT scan on Halcyon can be difficult due to rotational patient setup errors. Thus, to quantify the dosimetric impact, we simulated loss of target(s) coverage due to small, yet clinically observable rotational patient setup errors on Halcyon for SIMT treatments. METHODS: Seventeen previously treated 4D-CT based SIMT lung SBRT patients with two separate lesions (total 34 lesions, 50 Gy in five fractions to each lesion) on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF) using a similar arc geometry (except couch rotation), dose engine (AcurosXB algorithm), and treatment planning objectives. Rotational patient setup errors of [± 0.5° to ± 3.0°] on Halcyon were simulated via Velocity registration software in all three rotation axes and recalculated dose distributions in Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric impact of rotational errors was evaluated for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR). RESULTS: Average PTV volume and distance to isocenter were 23.7 cc and 6.1 cm. Average change in Paddick's conformity indexes were less than -5%, -10%, and -15% for 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively for yaw, roll, and pitch rotation directions. Maximum drop off of PTV(D100%) coverage for 2° rotation was -2.0% (yaw), -2.2% (roll), and -2.5% (pitch). With ±1° rotational error, no PTV(D100%) loss was found. Due to anatomical complexity: irregular and highly variable tumor sizes and locations, highly heterogenous dose distribution, and steep dose gradient, no trend for loss of target(s) coverage as a function of distance to isocenter and PTV size was found. Change in maximum dose to OAR were acceptable per NRG-BR001 within ±1.0° rotation, but were up to 5 Gy higher to heart with 2° in the pitch rotation axis. CONCLUSION: Our clinically realistic simulation results show that rotational patient setup errors up to 1.0° in any rotation axis could be acceptable for selected two separate lung lesions SBRT patients on Halcyon. Multivariable data analysis in large cohort is ongoing to fully characterize Halcyon RDS for synchronous SIMT lung SBRT.

Prospective evaluation of the setup errors and its impact on safety margin for cervical cancer pelvic conformal radiotherapy.

AIM: The primary objective was to assess set-up errors (SE) and secondary objective was to determine optimal safety margin (SM). BACKGROUND: To evaluate the SE and its impact on the SM utilizing electronic portal imaging (EPI) for pelvic conformal radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 cervical cancer patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Supine position with ankle and knee rest was used during CT simulation. The contouring was done using consensus guideline for intact uterus. 50 Gy in 25 fractions were delivered at the isocenter with ≥95% PTV coverage. Two orthogonal (Anterior and Lateral) digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) was constructed as a reference image. The pair of orthogonal [Anterior-Posterior and Right Lateral] single exposure EPIs during radiation was taken. The reference DRR and EPIs were compared for shifts, and SE was calculated in the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions. RESULTS: 320 images (40 DRRs and 280 EPIs) were assessed. The systematic error in the Z-axis (AP EPI), X-axis (AP EPI), and Y-axis (Lat EPI) ranged from -12.0 to 11.8 mm, -10.3 to 7.5 mm, and -8.50 to 9.70 mm, while the random error ranged from 1.60 to 6.15 mm, 0.59 to 4.93 mm, and 1.02 to -4.35 mm. The SM computed were 7.07, 6.36, and 7.79 mm in the Y-axis, X-axis, and Z-axis by Van Herk's equation, and 6.0, 5.51, and 6.74 mm by Stroom's equation. CONCLUSION: The computed SE helps defining SM, and it may differ between institutions. In our study, the calculated SM was approximately 8 mm in the Z-axis, 7 mm in X and Y axis for pelvic conformal radiotherapy.

Feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy to treat gastric cancer.

AIM: To present a proposed gastric cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning protocol for an institution that have not introduced volumetric modulated arc therapy in clinical practice. A secondary aim was to determine the impact of 2DkV set-up corrections on target coverage and organ at risk (OAR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty consecutive patients were treated with a specially-designed non-coplanar 7-field IMRT technique. The isocenter-shift method was used to estimate the impact of 2DkV-based set-up corrections on the original base plan (BP) coverage. An alternative plan was simulated (SP) by taking into account isocenter shifts. The SP and BP were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) plots calculated for the internal target volume (ITV) and OARs. RESULTS: Both plans delivered a similar mean dose to the ITV (100.32 vs. 100.40%), with no significant differences between the plans in internal target coverage (5.37 vs. 4.96%). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the maximal dose to the spinal cord (67.70 and 67.09%, respectively) and volume received 50% of the prescribed dose of: the liver (62.11 vs. 59.84%), the right (17.62 vs. 18.58%) and left kidney (29.40 vs. 30.48%). Set-up margins (SM) were computed as 7.80 mm, 10.17 mm and 6.71 mm in the left-right, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Presented IMRT protocol (OAR dose constraints with selected SM verified by 2DkV verification) for stomach treatment provided optimal dose distribution for the target and the critical organs. Comparison of DVH for the base and the modified plan (which considered set-up uncertainties) showed no significant differences.

Teaching Cancer Patients the Value of Correct Positioning During Radiotherapy Using Visual Aids and Practical Exercises.

The aim of this study was to investigate if teaching patients about positioning before radiotherapy treatment would (a) reduce the residual rotational set-up errors, (b) reduce the number of repositionings and (c) improve patients' sense of control by increasing self-efficacy and reducing distress. Patients were randomized to either standard care (control group) or standard care and a teaching session combining visual aids and practical exercises (intervention group). Daily images from the treatment sessions were evaluated off-line. Both groups filled in a questionnaire before and at the end of the treatment course on various aspects of cooperation with the staff regarding positioning. Comparisons of residual rotational set-up errors showed an improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. No significant differences were found in number of repositionings, self-efficacy or distress. Results show that it is possible to teach patients about positioning and thereby improve precision in positioning. Teaching patients about positioning did not seem to affect self-efficacy or distress scores at baseline and at the end of the treatment course.

Rotational Set Up Uncertainly in Non-6D Couch and its Effects in Clinical Target Volume- Planning Target Volume Margin Calculation for Different Sites.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate and incorporate rotational error to translational error for clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin calculations for non-6D couch. Materials and Methods: The study involved cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the patients who already had treatment in Varian Trilogy Clinac. The different sites studied were brain (70 patients, 406 CBCT images), head and neck (72 patients, 356 CBCT images), pelvis (83 patients, 606 CBCT images), and breast (45 patients, 163 CBCT images). Rotational and translational patient shifts were measured with the help of Varian eclipse offline review. The rotational shift introduces translational shift as it resolved along craniocaudal and mediolateral directions. Both rotational and translational error follow normal distribution and their respective errors were used to calculate CTV-PTV margin using van Herk model. Results: Rotational effect on CTV-PTV margin contribution increases with increase in size of CTV. It also increases with increase in distance between center of mass of CTV and isocenter. These margins were more pronounce in single isocenter supraclavicular fossa-Tangential Breast plans. Conclusions: There is always rotational error in all sites and it causes shift and rotation of the target. Rotational contribution to the CTV-PTV margin depends upon geometric center of CTV and isocenter distance and also on size of CTV. CTV-PTV margins should incorporate rotational error along with transitional error.

Assessment of Setup Errors in Gynecological Malignancies Treated With Radiotherapy Using Onboard Imaging.

Introduction  Radiotherapy plays a vital role in the management of gynecological malignancies. However, maintaining patient position poses a challenge during daily radiotherapy treatment of these patients. This study identifies and calculates setup errors in interfraction radiotherapy and optimum clinical target volume-planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins in patients with gynecological malignancies. Material and methods  A total of 38 patients with gynecological malignancies were included in the study. They were treated with a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions for five weeks, followed by brachytherapy. All patients were immobilized using a 4-point thermoplastic cast. Anteroposterior and lateral images were taken thrice weekly for five weeks. Setup verification was done using kilovoltage images obtained using Varian On-board Imager (Varian Medical System, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). Manual matching was done utilizing bony landmarks such as the widest portion of the pelvic brim, anterior border of S1 vertebrae, and pubic symphysis in the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively. Results A total of 1140 images were taken. The individual systematic errors ranged from -0.24 to 0.17 cm (LR), -0.15 to 0.19 cm (AP) and -0.36 to 0.29 cm (CC) while the individual random errors ranged from 0.04 to 0.36 cm (LR), 0.06 to 0.33 cm (AP) and 0.10 to 0.29 cm (CC). The calculated CTV-PTV margins in LR, AP and CC directions were 0.17, 0.18, and 0.25 cm (ICRU-62); 0.28, 0.31 and 0.47 cm in LR, AP and CC directions (Stroom's), and 0.32, 0.36 and 0.55 cm (Van Herk) respectively. Conclusion Based on this study, the calculated CTV-PTV margin is 6 mm in gynecological malignancies, and the present protocol of 7 mm of PTV margin is optimum.

A retrospective analysis comparing set up errors from standard versus customised headrests for head and neck radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: In response to advice from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (1) to reduce hospital visits during COVID-19, standard headrests were introduced for head and neck radiotherapy within Northern Centre for Cancer Care (NCCC). The standard headrest requires one mould room appointment compared to 3 appointments with customised headrests. METHODS: Two groups of 10 patients treated between December 2019 and June 2020 were retrospectively analysed by 1 observer. Groups were stratified according to age, sex and tumour site. One group had customised headrest and the other had standard headrest. Five hundred and forty seven cone beam computed tomography images were reviewed. A 6 Degree of Freedom match was performed then chin, shoulder and spine position were assessed using dosimetrist drawn structures. Structures out of the tolerance were recorded. A chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The out of tolerance chin position count recorded was 21 for customised headrest and 36 for standard headrest, p-value 0.046. The shoulder position count was 13 for customised headrest and 77 for standard headrest p-value <0.001. The spine position count was 3 for CHR and 21 for standard headrest, p-value <0.001. This means the headrests compared are not equivalent in terms of set up reproducibility. Overall the standard headrest group had 10 set-up re-scans and no set up re-scans were recorded in the customised headrest group. CONCLUSION: Fewer hospital visits with SHR reduce patient exposure to COVID-19. However, CHR provided a more reliable level of immobilisation in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The radiotherapy service will be reviewed in line with these findings.

A novel restricted single-isocenter stereotactic body radiotherapy (RESIST) method for synchronous multiple lung lesions to minimize setup uncertainties.

Treating multiple lung lesions synchronously using a single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plan can improve treatment efficiency and patient compliance. However, due to set up uncertainty, aligning multiple lung tumors on a single daily cone beam CT (CBCT) image has shown clinically unacceptable loss of target(s) coverage. Herein, we propose a Restricted Single-Isocenter Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (RESIST), an alternative treatment that mitigates patient setup uncertainties. Twenty-one patients with two lung lesions were treated with single-isocenter VMAT-SBRT using a 6MV-FFF beam to 54 Gy in 3 fractions (n = 7) or 50 Gy in 5 fractions (n = 14) prescribed to 70-80% isodose line. To minimize setup uncertainties, each plan was re-planned using the RESIST method, utilizing a single-isocenter placed at the patient's mediastinum. It allows for an individual plan to be created for each tumor, using the first plan as the base-dose for the second plan, while still allowing both tumors to be treated in the same session. The technique uses novel features in Eclipse, including dynamic conformal arc (DCA)-based dose and aperture shape controller before each VMAT optimization. RESIST plans provided better target dose conformity (p < 0.001) and gradient indices (p < 0.001) and lower dose to adjacent critical organs. Using RESIST to treat synchronous lung lesions with VMAT-SBRT significantly reduces plan complexity as demonstrated by smaller beam modulation factors (p < 0.001), without unreasonably increasing treatment time. RESIST reduces the chance of a geometric miss due by allowing CBCT matching of one tumor at a time. Placement of isocenter at the mediastinum avoids potential patient/gantry collisions, provides greater flexibility of noncoplanar arcs and eliminates the need for multiple couch movements during CBCT imaging. Efficacy of RESIST has been demonstrated for two lesions and can potentially be used for more lesions. Clinical implementation of this technique is ongoing.

Assessment of set-up errors in the radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer: standard vs. individual head support.

Background The aim of the study was to (a) compare the accuracy of two different immobilization strategies for patients with head and neck tumors, and (b) compare the set-up errors on treatment units with different portal imaging systems. Patients and methods Variations in the position of the isocenter (IC) relative to the reference point determined on the computed tomography simulator were measured in a vertical (anterior-posterior), longitudinal (superior-inferior), and lateral (medial-lateral) direction in 120 head and neck cancer patients irradiated with curative intent. Depending on the treatment unit (unit A - 2D/2D image previews; unit B- 2D image previews) and the time of irradiation, patients were divided into 6 groups of 20 patients. In patients irradiated in 2014, standard head supports were used (groups 1 and 2), whereas in those treated in 2015 and 2017 (groups 3-6) individual head supports were employed. The clinical-to-planning target volume safety margin was calculated according to the formula proposed by Van Herk. Results In total, 2,454 portal images and 3,681 set-up errors were analysed. Implementation of individual head supports in 2015 resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the average inter-fraction displacement in the vertical direction and in decreased number of IC displacements in the vertical and longitudinal direction (applies to both treatment units). The largest reduction of the safety margin was calculated in the longitudinal direction and the safety margins were larger for unit B than for unit A. Conclusions The use of individual head supports and a more advanced imaging system were found to increase set-up precision.

Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Radiosurgery for Multiple Brain Metastases: Potential Loss of Target(s) Coverage Due to Isocenter Misalignment.

Purpose A single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment to multiple brain metastatic patients is an efficient stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) option. However, the current clinical practice of single-isocenter SRS does not account for patient setup uncertainty, which degrades treatment delivery accuracy. This study quantifies the loss of target coverage and potential collateral dose to normal tissue due to clinically observable isocenter misalignment. Methods and materials Nine patients with 61 total tumors (2-16 tumors/patient) who underwent Gamma Knife® SRS were replanned in Eclipse™ using 10 megavoltages (MV) flattening-filter-free (FFF) bream (2400 MU/min), using a single-isocenter VMAT plan, similar to HyperArc™ VMAT plan. Isocenter was placed in the geometric center of the tumors. The prescription was 20 Gy to each tumor. Average gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were 1.1 cc (0.02-11.5 cc) and 1.9 cc (0.11-18.8 cc), respectively, derived from MRI images. The average isocenter to tumor distance was 5.5 cm (1.6-10.1 cm). Six-degrees of freedom (6DoF) random and systematic residual set up errors within [±2 mm, ±2o] were generated using an in-house script in Eclipse based on our pre-treatment daily cone-beam CT imaging shifts and recomputed for the simulated VMAT plan. Relative loss of target coverage as a function of tumor size and distance to isocenter were evaluated as well as collateral dose to organs-at risk (OAR). Results The average beam-on time was less than six minutes. However, loss of target coverage for clinically observable setup errors were, on average, 7.9% (up to 73.1%) for the GTV (p < 0.001) and 21.5% for the PTV (up to 93.7%; p < 0.001). The correlation was found for both random and systematic residual setup errors with tumor sizes; there was a greater loss of target coverage for small tumors. Due to isocenter misalignment, OAR doses fluctuated and potentially receive higher doses than the original plan. Conclusion A single-isocenter VMAT SRS treatment (similar to HyperArc™ VMAT) to multiple brain metastases was fast with < 6 min of beam-on time. However, due to small residual set up errors, single-isocenter VMAT, in its current use, is not an accurate SRS treatment modality for multiple brain metastases. Loss of target coverage was statistically significant, especially for smaller lesions, and may not be clinically acceptable if left uncorrected. Further investigation of correction strategies is underway.

Evaluating the Need for Daily Image Guidance in Head and Neck Cancers Treated with Helical Tomotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis of a Large Number of Daily Imaging-based Corrections.

AIMS: Clinical implementation of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy is rapidly evolving. Helical tomotherapy treatment delivery involves daily imaging before intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivery. This can be a time consuming resource-intensive process, which may not be essential in head and neck radiotherapy, where effective immobilisation is possible. This study aimed to evaluate whether an offline protocol implementing the shifts derived from the first few fractions can be an acceptable alternative to daily imaging for helical tomotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the set-up data of 2858 fractions of 100 head and neck cancer patients who were treated with daily online image guidance. Using summary data from all treatment fractions, we calculated the systematic error (∑) and random error (σ) in each of the three axes, i.e. mediolateral (x), craniocaudal (y), anteroposterior (z). We also calculated the translational vector of each fraction of individual patients. We then simulated two no-action-level offline protocols where set-up errors of the first three (protocol F3) or five fractions (protocol F5) were averaged and implemented for the remaining fractions. The residual errors in each axis for these fractions were determined together with the residual ∑ and σ. Planning target volume (PTV) margins using the van Herk formula were generated based on the uncorrected errors as well as for the F3 and F5 protocols. For each scenario, we tabulated the number of fractions where the residual errors were more than 5 mm (our default PTV margin). We also tried to evaluate whether errors tended to differ based on intent (radical or adjuvant), anatomical subsite or weight loss during treatment. RESULTS: Analysis from this large dataset revealed that in the tomotherapy platform, the highest set-up errors were in the anteroposterior (z) axis. The global mean was 5.4 mm posterior shift, which can be partly attributed to couch sag on this system. Uncorrected set-up errors resulted in systematic and random errors of ∑x,y,z of 1.8, 1.7 and 2 mm and σx,y,z of 1.7, 1.5 and 1.9 mm, with a required PTV margin in x, y, z axes of 5.7, 5.3 and 6.2 mm. Implementing average shifts from the first three or five fractions resulted in a substantial reduction in the residual systematic errors, whereas random errors remained constant. The PTV margins required for the residual errors after three and five fraction corrections were 3.8, 3.4 and 5.1 mm for F3 and 3.3, 2.9, 4.8 mm for F5. The proportions of fractions where there was >5 mm residual error were 1.6%, 1.1%, 2.9% in x, y and z axes in the F3 protocol and 1.5%, 0.8% and 2.6% with the F5 protocol. Although there was no difference in residual shifts > 5 mm, there was a statistically higher chance of residual errors > 3 mm larynx/hypopharynx subsites versus other sites. In patients who had more than 5% weight loss, there was no significant increase in residual errors with the F5 protocol and the required PTV margin was within our default PTV margins expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Correction of systematic errors by implementing average shifts from the first five fractions enables us to safely avoid daily imaging in this retrospective analysis. If this is validated in a prospective group it could lead to implementation of a resource sparing image-guided radiotherapy protocol both in terms of time and imaging dose. Patients with larynx/hypopharynx subsites may require more careful evaluation and daily online matching.

Margin evaluation of translational and rotational set-up errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer.

A clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin recipes was routinely used to ensure dose was actually delivered to target for all (most) patients. Currently used margin recipes were associated with only translational set-up errors in radiotherapy. However, when set-up errors extended to six-degree (6D) scope (three translational and three rotational set-up errors), margin recipe should be re-evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate dosimetric changes of targets (both CTV and PTV) coverage when 6D set-up errors were introduced and testify the practicability of currently used margin recipe in radiotherapy. A total number of 105 cone beam computer tomography scans for ten patients with cervical cancer were derived prior to treatment delivery and 6D set-up errors were acquired with image registration tools. Target coverage was evaluated retrospectively for 6D set-up errors introduced plan with 6 mm CTV to PTV margin. Target coverage of PTV showed significant decreases (3.3 %) in set-up errors introduced plans compared with original plans. But CTV coverage was not susceptible to these set-up errors. A tendency of coverage decrease for PTV along with distance away from treatment was testified, from -0.2 to -6.2 %. However, CTV seems changed less, from -0.2 to -0.8 %. The result indicate that a CTV to PTV margin of 6 mm was sufficient to take into account 6D set-up errors for most patients with cervical cancer. Future research suggests a smaller margin to further improve both tumor coverage and organs at risk sparing.

Assessment of three-dimensional set-up errors using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) during image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) on helical tomotherapy (HT).

The purpose of this study was to assess three-dimensional (3D) set-up errors using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) during image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for supine craniospinal irradiation (CSI) on helical tomotherapy (HT). Patients were immobilized in a customized 4-clamp thermoplastic head mask with or without whole-body vacuum cradle. Set-up was based primarily on a set of cranial fiducial markers. MVCT scans were acquired and co-registered with planning scan separately at three different levels (brain, upper, and lower spine) at every fraction. Only translational displacements were analysed, wherein positive sign denotes deviation in anterior, left, and superior direction; while negative sign denotes deviation in posterior, right, and inferior direction. Mean displacements, systematic, and random errors of the study population were calculated at all three levels separately. Local residual uncertainty of the upper and lower spine was also derived assuming perfect co-registration of the skull. Set-up margins for clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) were derived at these three levels separately using published margin recipes. Data from 1868 co-registrations in 674 fractions on 33 patients was included. The mean displacements in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions were -1.21, -1.36, and 1.38 mm; -1.25, -0.34, and 0.65 mm; and -1.47, -2.78, and 0.22 mm for the brain; upper spine; and lumbar spine respectively. The corresponding 3D vector of displacement was 2.28; 1.45; and 3.15 mm respectively. There was a distinct systematic trend towards increasing inaccuracy from the brain towards the lower spine. Using Stroom's formula, the minimum recommended CTV to PTV margins in absence of daily image-guidance were 6.5; 7.0; and 9.5 mm for the brain; upper spine; and lower spine respectively. This increased to 7.5; 8.5; and 11.5 mm using van Herk's formula. Subset and sensitivity analyses could not identify any factor predictive of increased inaccuracy. Residual uncertainty of the spinal column was lesser after daily co-registration referenced to the skull, suggesting that smaller set-up margins maybe appropriate while using daily image-guidance with an online correction protocol. Daily MVCT imaging during supine CSI on HT provides volumetric verification of the set-up process. There is substantial site-dependent variability in translational displacements that increases systematically from brain towards the lower spine with implications for differential set-up -margins for the brain, upper, and lower spine.

Quantifying intra- and inter-fractional motion in breast radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The magnitude of intra- and inter-fractional variation in the set up of breast cancer patients treated with tangential megavoltage photon beams was investigated using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). METHODS: Daily cine-EPID images were captured during delivery of the tangential fields for ten breast cancer patients treated in the supine position. Measurements collected from each image included the central lung distance (CLD), central flash distance (CFD), superior axial measurement (SAM) and the inferior axial measurement (IAM). The variation of motion within a fraction (intra-fraction) and the variation between fractions (inter-fraction) was analysed to quantify set up variation and motion due to respiration. RESULTS: Altogether 3775 EPID images were collected from 10 patients. The effect of respiratory motion during treatment was <0.1 cm standard deviation (SD) in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction. The inter-fraction movement caused by variations in daily set up was larger at 0.28 cm SD in the AP direction. Superior-inferior (SI) variation was more difficult to summarise and proved unreliable as the measurements were taken to an ambiguous point on the images. It was difficult to discern true SI movement from that implicated by AP movement. CONCLUSION: There is minimal intra-fractional chest wall motion due to respiration during treatment. Inter-fractional variation was larger, however, on average it remained within departmental tolerance (0.5 cm) for set up variations. This review of our current breast technique provides confidence in the feasibility of utilising advanced treatment techniques (field-in-field, intensity modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy) following a review of the current imaging protocol.

Evaluation of set-up errors in head and neck radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate three-dimensional (3D) set-up errors and propose optimum margins for planning target volume (PTV) coverage in head and neck radiotherapy. METHODS: Thirty-five patients were included in the study. The total number of portal images studied was 632. Population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors for the patients with head and neck cancer were evaluated based on the portal images in the caudocranial longitudinal (CC) and left-right lateral (LR) direction measured in the anterior-posterior (AP) field, as well as from the images in the caudocranial longitudinal (CC) and dorsoventral lateral (DV) direction measured in the lateral (LAT) field. The values for the clinical-to-planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins were calculated using ICRU Report 62 recommendations, along with Stroom's and van Herk's formulae. RESULTS: The standard deviations of systematic set-up errors (Σ) ranged from 1.51 to 1.93 mm while the standard deviations of random set-up (σ) errors fell in between 1.77 and 1.86 mm. The mean 3D vector length of displacement was 2.66 mm. PTV margins calculated according to ICRU, Stroom's and van Herk's models were comprised between 1.95 and 6.16 mm in the three acquisition directions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results we can conclude that a 6-mm extension of CTV to PTV margin, as the lower limit, is enough to ensure that 90% of the patients treated for head and neck cancer will receive a minimum cumulative CTV dose greater than or equal to 95% of the prescribed dose.