Motion monitoring for cranial frameless stereotactic radiosurgery using video-based three-dimensional optical surface imaging.

PURPOSE: To establish a new clinical procedure in frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patient setup verification at treatment couch angles as well as for head-motion monitoring during treatment using video-based optical surface imaging (OSI). METHODS: A video-based three-dimensional (3D) OSI system with three ceiling-mounted camera pods was employed to verify setup at treatment couch angles as well as to monitor head motion during treatment. A noninvasive head immobilization device was utilized, which includes an alpha head mold and a dental mouthpiece with vacuum suction; both were locked to the treatment couch. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used as the standard for image-guided setup. Orthogonal 2D-kV imaging was applied for setup verification before treatment, between couch rotations, and after treatment at zero couch angle. At various treatment couch angles, OSI setup verification was performed, relative to initial OSI setup verification at zero couch angle after CBCT setup through a coordinate transformation. For motion monitoring, the setup uncertainty was decoupled by taking an on-site surface image as new reference to detect motion-induced misalignment in near real-time (1-2 frames per second). Initial thermal instability baseline of the real-time monitoring was corrected. An anthropomorphous head phantom and a 1D positioning platform were used to assess the OSI accuracy in motion detection in longitudinal and lateral directions. Two hypofractionated (9 Gy x 3 and 6 Gy x 5) frameless stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patients as well as two single-fraction (21 and 18 Gy) frameless SRS patients were treated using this frameless procedure. For comparison, 11 conventional frame-based SRS patients were monitored using the OSI to serve as clinical standards. Multiple noncoplanar conformal beams were used for planning both frameless and frame-based SRS with a micromultileaf collimator. RESULTS: The accuracy of the OSI in 1D motion detection was found to be 0.1 mm with uncertainty of +/- 0.1 mm using the head phantom. The OSI registration against simulation computed tomography (CT) external contour was found to be dependent on the CT skin definition with -0.4 mm variation. For frame-based SRS patients, head-motion magnitude was detected to be <1.0 mm (0.3 +/- 0.2 mm) and <1.0 degree (0.2 degrees +/- 0.2 degrees) for 98% of treatment time, with exception of one patient with head rotation <1.5 degrees for 98% of the time. For frameless SRT/SRS patients, similar motion magnitudes were observed with an average of 0.3 +/- 0.2 mm and 0.2 degrees +/- 0.1 degree in ten treatments. For 98% of the time, the motion magnitude was <1.1 mm and 1.0 degree. Complex head-motion patterns within 1.0 mm were observed for frameless SRT/SRS patients. The OSI setup verification at treatment couch angles was found to be within 1.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The OSI system is capable of detecting 0.1 +/- 0.1 mm 1D spatial displacement of a phantom in near real time and useful in head-motion monitoring. This new frameless SRS procedure using the mask-less head-fixation system provides immobilization similar to that of conventional frame-based SRS. Head-motion monitoring using near-real-time surface imaging provides adequate accuracy and is necessary for frameless SRS in case of unexpected head motion that exceeds a set tolerance.

The effect of significant tumor reduction on the dose distribution in intensity modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a case study.

We present a unique case in which a patient with significant tissue loss was monitored for dosimetric changes using weekly cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. A previously treated nasopharynx patient presented with a large, exophytic, recurrent left neck mass. The patient underwent re-irradiation to 70 Gy using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with shielding blocks over the spinal cord and brain stem. Weekly CBCT scans were acquired during treatment. Target contours and treatment fields were then transferred from the original treatment planning computed tomography (CT) to the CBCT scans and dose calculations were performed on all CBCT scans and compared to the planning doses. In addition, a "research" treatment plan was created that assumed the patient had not been previously treated, and the above analysis was repeated. Finally, to remove the effects of setup error, the outer contours of 2 CBCT scans with significant tumor reductions were transferred to the planning scan and dose in the planning scan was recalculated. Planning treatment volume (PTV) decreased 45% during treatment. Spinal cord D05 differed from the planned value by 3.5 +/- 9.8% (average + standard deviation). Mean dose to the oral cavity and D05 of the mandible differed from the planned value by 0.9 +/- 2.1% and 0.6 +/- 1.5%, respectively. Results for the research plan were comparable. Target coverage did not change appreciably (-0.2 +/- 2.5%). When the planning scan was recalculated with the reduced outer contour from the CBCT, spinal cord D05 decreased slightly due to the reduction in scattered dose. Weekly imaging provided us the unique opportunity to use different methods to examine the dosimetric effects of an unusually large loss of tissue. We did not see that tissue loss alone resulted in a significant effect on the dose delivered to the spinal cord for this case, as most fluctuation was due to setup error. In the IGRT era, delivered dose distributions can be more readily determined during treatment, and this information can be useful in deciding whether replanning is necessary.