Comparison of patient setup accuracy for optical surface-guided and X-ray-guided imaging with respect to the impact on intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The objective of this work is to estimate the patient positioning accuracy of a surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system using an optical surface scanner compared to an X­ray-based imaging system (IGRT) with respect to their impact on intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: Patient positioning data, both acquired with SGRT and IGRT systems at the same linacs, serve as a basis for determination of positioning accuracy. A total of 35 patients with two different open face masks (578 datasets) were positioned using X­ray stereoscopic imaging and the patient position inside the open face mask was recorded using SGRT. The measurement accuracy of the SGRT system (in a "standard" and an SRS mode with higher resolution) was evaluated using both IGRT and SGRT patient positioning datasets taking into account the measurement errors of the X­ray system. Based on these clinically measured datasets, the positioning accuracy was estimated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The relevant evaluation criterion, as standard of practice in cranial SRT, was the 95th percentile. RESULTS: The interfractional measurement displacement vector of the SGRT system, σSGRT, in high resolution mode was estimated at 2.5 mm (68th percentile) and 5 mm (95th percentile). If the standard resolution was used, σSGRT increased by about 20%. The standard deviation of the axis-related σSGRT of the SGRT system ranged between 1.5 and 1.8 mm interfractionally and 0.5 and 1.0 mm intrafractionally. The magnitude of σSGRT is mainly due to the principle of patient surface scanning and not due to technical limitations or vendor-specific issues in software or hardware. Based on the resulting σSGRT, MC simulations served as a measure for the positioning accuracy for non-coplanar couch rotations. If an SGRT system is used as the only patient positioning device in non-coplanar fields, interfractional positioning errors of up to 6 mm and intrafractional errors of up to 5 mm cannot be ruled out. In contrast, MC simulations resulted in a positioning error of 1.6 mm (95th percentile) using the IGRT system. The cause of positioning errors in the SGRT system is mainly a change in the facial surface relative to a defined point in the brain. CONCLUSION: In order to achieve the necessary geometric accuracy in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy, use of an X­ray-based IGRT system, especially when treating with non-coplanar couch angles, is highly recommended.

Setup margins based on the inter- and intrafractional setup error of left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath-hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT).

PURPOSE: The use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), and hypofractionated regimen requires adequate patient setup accuracy to achieve an optimal outcome. The purpose of this study was to assess the setup accuracy of patients receiving left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath-hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) and to calculate the corresponding setup margins. METHODS: The patient setup accuracy between and within radiotherapy fractions was measured by comparing the 6DOF shifts made by the SGRT system AlignRT with the shifts made by kV-CBCT. Three hundred and three radiotherapy fractions of 23 left-sided breast cancer patients using DIBH and SGRT were used for the analysis. All patients received pre-treatment DIBH training and visual feedback during DIBH. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test patient setup differences for statistical significance. The corresponding setup margins were calculated using the van Herk's formula. RESULTS: The intrafractional patient setup accuracy was significantly better than the interfractional setup accuracy (p < 0.001). The setup margin for the combined inter- and intrafractional setup error was 4, 6, and 4 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions if based on SGRT alone. The intrafractional error contributed ≤1 mm to the calculated setup margins. CONCLUSION: With SGRT, excellent intrafractional and acceptable interfractional patient setup accuracy can be achieved for the radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer using DIBH and modern radiation techniques. This allows for reducing the frequency of kV-CBCTs, thereby saving treatment time and radiation exposure.

Impact of setup errors on the robustness of linac-based single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans for multiple brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Patient setup errors have been a primary concern impacting the dose delivery accuracy in radiation therapy. A robust treatment plan might mitigate the effects of patient setup errors. In this reported study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of translational and rotational errors on the robustness of linac-based, single-isocenter, coplanar, and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans for multiple brain metastases. METHODS: Fifteen patients were retrospectively selected for this study with a combined total of 49 gross tumor volumes (GTVs). Single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar plans were generated first with a prescribed dose of 40 Gy in 5 fractions or 42 Gy in 7 fractions to cover 95% of planning target volume (PTV). Next, four setup errors (+1  and +2 mm translation, and +1° and +2° rotation) were applied individually to generate modified plans. Different plan quality evaluation metrics were compared between coplanar and non-coplanar plans. 3D gamma analysis (3%/2 mm) was performed to compare the modified plans (+2 mm and +2° only) and the original plans. Paired t-test was conducted for statistical analysis. RESULTS: After applying setup errors, variations of all plan evaluation metrics were similar (p > 0.05). The worst case for V100% to GTV was 92.07% ± 6.13% in the case of +2 mm translational error. 3D gamma pass rates were > 90% for both coplanar (+2 mm and +2°) and the +2 mm non-coplanar groups but was 87.40% ± 6.89% for the +2° non-coplanar group. CONCLUSION: Translational errors have a greater impact on PTV and GTV dose coverage for both planning methods. Rotational errors have a greater negative impact on gamma pass rates of non-coplanar plans. Plan evaluation metrics after applying setup errors showed that both coplanar and non-coplanar plans were robust and clinically acceptable.

Setup errors analysis in iterative kV CBCT: A clinical study of cervical cancer treated with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze setup errors in pelvic Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for patients with non-surgical primary cervical cancer, utilizing the onboard iterative kV cone beam CT (iCBCT) imaging system on the Varian Halcyon 2.0 ring gantry structure accelerator to enhance radiotherapy precision. METHOD: We selected 132 cervical cancer patients who underwent VMAT with daily iCBCT imaging guidance. Before each treatment session, a registration method based on the bony structure was employed to acquire iCBCT images with the corresponding planning CT images. Following verification and adjustment of image registration results along the three axes (but not rotational), setup errors in the lateral (X-axis), longitudinal (Y-axis), and vertical (Z-axis) directions were recorded for each patient. Subsequently, we analyzed 3642 iCBCT image setup errors. RESULTS: The mean setup errors for the X, Y, and Z axes were 4.50 ± 3.79 mm, 6.08 ± 6.30 mm, and 1.48 ± 2.23 mm, respectively. Before correction with iCBCT, setup margins based on the Van Herk formula for the X, Y, and Z axes were 6.28, 12.52, and 3.26 mm, respectively. In individuals aged 60 years and older, setup errors in the X and Y axes were significantly larger than those in the younger group (p < 0.05). Additionally, there is no significant linear correlation between setup errors and treatment fraction numbers. CONCLUSION: Data analysis underscores the importance of precise Y-axis setup for cervical cancer patients undergoing VMAT. Radiotherapy centers without daily iCBCT should appropriately extend the planning target volume (PTV) along the Y-axis for cervical cancer patients receiving pelvic VMAT. Elderly patients exhibit significantly larger setup errors compared to younger counterparts. In conclusion, iCBCT-guided radiotherapy is recommended for cervical cancer patients undergoing VMAT to improve setup precision.

SGRT-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer setup accuracy and margin of the PTV.

OBJECTIVE: Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT, AlignRT) was used to analyze motion during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in lung cancer patients and to explore the margin of the planning target volume (PTV). METHODS: The residual errors of the AlignRT were evaluated based on grayscale cone-beam computed tomography registration results before each treatment. AlignRT log file was used to analyze the correlation between the frequency and longest duration of errors larger than 2 mm and lasting longer than 2 s and maximum error with age and treatment duration. The displacement value at the end of treatment, the average displacement value, and the 95% probability density displacement interval were defined as intrafraction errors, and PTV1, PTV2, PTV3 were calculated by Van Herk formula or Z score analysis. Organ dosimetric differences were compared after the experience-based margin was replaced with PTV3. RESULTS: The interfraction residual errors were Vrt0 , 0.06 ± 0.18 cm; Lng0 , -0.03 ± 0.19 cm; Lat0 , 0.02 ± 0.15 cm; Pitch0 , 0.23 ± 0.7°; Roll0 , 0.1 ± 0.69°; Rtn0 , -0.02 ± 0.79°. The frequency, longest duration and maximum error in vertical direction were correlated with treatment duration (r = 0.404, 0.353, 0.283, p < 0.05, respectively). In the longitudinal direction, the frequency was correlated with age and treatment duration (r = 0.376, 0.283, p < 0.05, respectively), maximum error was correlated with age (r = 0.4, P < 0.05). Vertical, longitudinal, lateral margins of PTV1, PTV2, PTV3 were 2 mm, 4 mm, 2 mm; 2 mm, 2 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 3 mm, respectively. After replacing the original PTV, mean lung dose (MLD), 2-cm3 chest wall dose (CD), lung V20 decreased by 0.2 Gy, 2.1 Gy, 0.5%, respectively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: AlignRT can be used for interfraction setup and monitoring intrafraction motion. It is more reasonable to use upper and lower limits of the 95% probability density interval as an intrafraction error.

Error detection using a multi-channel hybrid network with a low-resolution detector in patient-specific quality assurance.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a hybrid multi-channel network to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors using dose difference (DD) maps and gamma maps generated from low-resolution detectors in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). METHODS: A total of 68 plans with 358 beams of IMRT were included in this study. The MLC leaf positions of all control points in the original IMRT plans were modified to simulate four types of errors: shift error, opening error, closing error, and random error. These modified plans were imported into the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate the predicted dose, while the PTW seven29 phantom was utilized to obtain the measured dose distributions. Based on the measured and predicted dose, DD maps and gamma maps, both with and without errors, were generated, resulting in a dataset with 3222 samples. The network's performance was evaluated using various metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, ROC curves, and normalized confusion matrix. Besides, other baseline methods, such as single-channel hybrid network, ResNet-18, and Swin-Transformer, were also evaluated as a comparison. RESULTS: The experimental results showed that the multi-channel hybrid network outperformed other methods, demonstrating higher average precision, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-scores, with values of 0.87, 0.89, 0.85, 0.97, and 0.85, respectively. The multi-channel hybrid network also achieved higher AUC values in the random errors (0.964) and the error-free (0.946) categories. Although the average accuracy of the multi-channel hybrid network was only marginally better than that of ResNet-18 and Swin Transformer, it significantly outperformed them regarding precision in the error-free category. CONCLUSION: The proposed multi-channel hybrid network exhibits a high level of accuracy in identifying MLC errors using low-resolution detectors. The method offers an effective and reliable solution for promoting quality and safety of IMRT QA.

Development of a phantom for assessing the precision of setup in skin mark-less surface-guided radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) is adopted by several institutions; however, reports on the phantoms used to assess the precision of the SGRT setup are limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a phantom to verify the accuracy of the irradiation position during skin mark-less SGRT. METHODS: An acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic cube phantom with a diameter of 150 mm on each side containing a dummy target of 15 mm and two types of body surface-shaped phantoms (breast/face shape) that could be attached to the cube phantom were fabricated. Films can be inserted on four sides of the cubic phantom (left, right, anterior and posterior), and the center of radiation can be calculated by irradiating the dummy target with orthogonal MV beams. Three types of SGRT using a VOXELAN-HEV600M (Electronics Research&Development Corporation, Okayama, Japan) were evaluated using this phantom: (i) SGRTCT-a SGRT set-up based solely on a computed tomography (CT)-reference image. (ii) SGRTCT + CBCT-a method where cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) matching was performed after SGRTCT. (iii) SGRTScan-a resetup technique using a scan reference image obtained after completing the (ii) step. RESULTS: Both the breast and face phantoms were recognized in the SGRT system without problems. SGRTScan ensure precision within 1 mm/1° for breast and face verification, respectively. All SGRT methods showed comparable rotational accuracies with no significant disparities. CONCLUSIONS: The developed phantom was useful for verifying the accuracy of skin mark-less SGRT position matching. The SGRTScan demonstrated the feasibility of achieving skin-mark less SGRT with high accuracy, with deviations of less than 1 mm. Additional research is necessary to evaluate the suitability of the developed phantoms for use in various facilities and systems. This phantom could be used for postal surveys in the future.

Skin marker combined with surface-guided auto-positioning for breast DIBH radiotherapy daily initial patient setup: An optimal schedule for both accuracy and efficiency.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: By employing three surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT)-assisted positioning methods, we conducted a prospective study of patients undergoing SGRT-based deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) radiotherapy using a Sentine/Catalys system. The aim of this study was to optimize the initial positioning workflow of SGRT-DIBH radiotherapy for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 patients were divided into three groups to conduct a prospective comparative study of the setup accuracy and efficiency for the daily initial setup of SGRT-DIBH breast radiotherapy. Group A was subjected to skin marker plus SGRT verification, Group B underwent SGRT optical feedback plus auto-positioning, and Group C was subjected to skin marker plus SGRT auto-positioning. We evaluated setup accuracy and efficiency using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) verification data and the total setup time. RESULTS: In groups A, B, and C, the mean and standard deviation of the translational setup-error vectors were small, with the highest values of the three directions observed in group A (2.4 ± 1.6, 2.9 ± 1.8, and 2.8 ± 2.1 mm). The rotational vectors in group B (1.8 ± 0.7°, 2.1 ± 0.8°, and 1.8 ± 0.7°) were significantly larger than those in groups A and C, and the Group C setup required the shortest amount of time, at 1.5 ± 0.3 min, while that of Group B took the longest time, at 2.6 ± 0.9 min. CONCLUSION: SGRT one-key calibration was found to be more suitable when followed by skin marker/tattoo and in-room laser positioning, establishing it as an optimal daily initial set-up protocol for breast DIBH radiotherapy. This modality also proved to be suitable for free-breathing breast cancer radiotherapy, and its widespread clinical use is recommended.

The accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technique as an image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) technique.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the setup error of the patient's positioning using cone-beam computed tomography during radiation therapy treatment fractions by finding systematic, random errors and the planned target volume errors. METHODS: The observational, longitudinal cohort study was conducted at the Al-Warith International Cancer Institute, Karbala, Iraq, from January to May 2022, and comprised patients with head and neck cancer who underwent radiation therapy. The oncologist delineated and the medical physicist planned. Then the medical physicist modified the positioning system using the cone beam computed tomography option workstation. The vertical value was taken in anteroposterior site, longitudinal in superoinferior, and lateral in e mediolateral. The SPSS 25 were used to analyse data. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients, 17(54.8%) were females and 14(45.2%) were males. The overall mean age was 48.3 ± 10.22 (range: 4-77 years), and 22(70.96%) patients had been treated previously with chemotherapy. The lateral shifting inaccuracy 2.501mm was above the limit, whereas the vertical shifting 1.164mm was within acceptable limits (±2mm). The longitudinal shifting had the smallest displacement 0.436mm. Random error displayed longitudinal moving 1.965mm, lateral shifting 0.623mm and vertical shifting 0.276mm. The planned target volume margins were too wide in longitudinal shifting 3.333mm. Vertical shifting 0.481mm was greater than lateral 1.092mm, but both were within limits (±2mm). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation-induced errors in normal tissues must be reduced by reducing planned target volume margins, especially for longitudinal and lateral directions.

Mask dependency of the lacrimal gland dose under whole brain radiotherapy when the six-degrees of freedom couch is not available.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye syndrome has been recently reported in patients who underwent whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). WBRT based on a couch with three-degrees of freedom (3D) can occasionally be performed in which the rotational head motion is not corrected. This study assessed the dependency of the rotational errors on the mask and the dose variation of the lens and lacrimal gland in WBRT patients. METHODS: Translational and rotational setup errors were obtained at the first treatment with cone-beam CT (CBCT) for patients under WBRT and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (n = 20 each) immobilized using a conventional WB mask and an SRS mask with a bite block, respectively. For the CT sets of SRS cases, WBRT plans were generated for the study. To simulate the rotational error, rotated CT images were created with each rotational error, on which initial WBRT plans were copied and doses were recalculated. The lens and lacrimal gland doses with and without rotation errors were compared. RESULTS: Despite similar translational setup errors for the two masks, the SRS mask showed a dramatic reduction in rotational errors compared to those of the WB mask. The errors varied within -2.9° to 2.9° and -1.2° to 0.7° for the WB and SRS masks, respectively. Accordingly, the SRS mask confined the change in the maximum lens dose, mean dose of the lacrimal gland, and lacrimal volume receiving 15 Gy to one-third of those using the WB mask. CONCLUSION: When the six-degrees of freedom (6D) couch is not available, the frameless SRS mask is beneficial to WBRT for the faithful treatment as it was planned.

Augmented reality-guided positioning system for radiotherapy patients.

In modern radiotherapy, error reduction in the patients' daily setup error is important for achieving accuracy. In our study, we proposed a new approach for the development of an assist system for the radiotherapy position setup by using augmented reality (AR). We aimed to improve the accuracy of the position setup of patients undergoing radiotherapy and to evaluate the error of the position setup of patients who were diagnosed with head and neck cancer, and that of patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer. We acquired the patient's simulation CT data for the three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the external surface and organs. The AR tracking software detected the calibration module and loaded the 3D virtual model. The calibration module was aligned with the Linac isocenter by using room lasers. And then aligned the virtual cube with the calibration module to complete the calibration of the 3D virtual model and Linac isocenter. Then, the patient position setup was carried out, and point cloud registration was performed between the patient and the 3D virtual model, such the patient's posture was consistent with the 3D virtual model. Twenty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer and 20 patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer in the supine position setup were analyzed for the residual errors of the conventional laser and AR-guided position setup. Results show that for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer, the difference between the two positioning methods was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). For patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer, the residual errors of the two positioning methods in the superior and inferior direction and anterior and posterior direction were statistically significant (t = -5.80, -4.98, P < 0.05). The residual errors in the three rotation directions were statistically significant (t = -2.29 to -3.22, P < 0.05). The experimental results showed that the AR technology can effectively assist in the position setup of patients undergoing radiotherapy, significantly reduce the position setup errors in patients diagnosed with chest and abdomen cancer, and improve the accuracy of radiotherapy.

Accuracy of patient setup positioning using surface-guided radiotherapy with deformable registration in cases of surface deformation.

The Catalyst™ HD (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden) is surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) equipment that adopts a deformable model. The challenge in applying the SGRT system is accurately correcting the setup error using a deformable model when the body of the patient is deformed. This study evaluated the effect of breast deformation on the accuracy of the setup correction of the SGRT system. Physical breast phantoms were used to investigate the relationship between the mean deviation setup error obtained from the SGRT system and the breast deformation. Physical breast phantoms were used to simulate extension and shrinkage deformation (-30 to 30 mm) by changing breast pieces. Three-dimensional (3D) Slicer software was used to evaluate the deformation. The maximum deformations in X, Y, and Z directions were obtained as the differences between the original and deformed breasts. We collected the mean deviation setup error from the SGRT system by replacing the original breast part with the deformed breast part. The mean absolute difference of lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll, and yaw, between the rigid and deformable registrations was 2.4 ± 1.7 mm, 1.3 ± 1.2 mm, 6.4 ± 5.2 mm, 2.5° ± 2.5°, 2.2° ± 2.4°, and 1.0° ± 1.0°, respectively. Deformation in the Y direction had the best correlation with the mean deviation translation error (R = 0.949) and rotation error (R = 0.832). As the magnitude of breast deformation increased, both mean deviation setup errors increased, and there was greater error in translation than in rotation. Large deformation of the breast surface affects the setup correction. Deformation in the Y direction most affects translation and rotation errors.

Comparison of setup accuracy and efficiency between the Klarity system and BodyFIX system for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses highly conformal dose distributions and sharp dose gradients to cover targets in proximity to the spinal cord or cauda equina, which requires precise patient positioning and immobilization to deliver safe treatments. AIMS: Given some limitations with the BodyFIX system in our practice, we sought to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of the Klarity SBRT patient immobilization system in comparison to the BodyFIX system. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with 26 metastatic spinal lesions (78 fractions) were enrolled in this prospective observational study with one of two systems - BodyFIX (n = 11) or Klarity (n = 12). All patients were initially set up to external marks and positioned to match bony anatomy on ExacTrac images. Table corrections given by ExacTrac during setup and intrafractional monitoring and deviations from pre- and posttreatment CBCT images were analyzed. RESULTS: For initial setup accuracy, the Klarity system showed larger differences between initial skin mark alignment and the first bony alignment on ExacTrac than BodyFIX, especially in the vertical (mean [SD] of 5.7 mm [4.1 mm] for Klarity vs. 1.9 mm [1.7 mm] for BodyFIX, p-value < 0.01) and lateral (5.4 mm [5.1 mm] for Klarity vs. 3.2 mm [3.2 mm] for BodyFIX, p-value 0.02) directions. For set-up stability, no significant differences (all p-values > 0.05) were observed in the maximum magnitude of positional deviations between the two systems. For setup efficiency, Klarity system achieved desired bony alignment with similar number of setup images and similar setup time (14.4 min vs. 15.8 min, p-value = 0.41). For geometric uncertainty, systematic and random errors were found to be slightly less with Klarity than with BodyFIX based on an analytical calculation. CONCLUSION: With image-guided correction of initial alignment by external marks, the Klarity system can provide accurate and efficient patient immobilization. It can be a promising alternative to the BodyFIX system for spine SBRT while providing potential workflow benefits depending on one's practice environment.

Detection of setup errors with a body-surface laser-scanning system for whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: We compared the setup errors determined by an optical imaging system (OSIS) in women who received breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) with those from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) carried out routinely. METHODS: We compared 130 setup errors in 10 patients undergoing WBRT following BCS by analyzing the translational and rotational couch shifts via CBCT and OSIS. Patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The patient outline extracted from the planning reference Computed tomography (CT) was used as the reference for OSIS and CBCT alignment during treatment. We detected the setup uncertainty using CBCT and OSIS at the first five fractionations of RT and then twice a week. RESULTS: The absolute translational setup error (mean ± Standard deviation (SD)) in x (lateral), y (longitudinal), and z (vertical) axes detected by the OSIS was 0.14 ± 0.18, 0.15 ± 0.14, and 0.13 ± 0.13 cm, respectively. The rotational setup error (mean ± SD) in Rx (pitch), Ry (roll), and Rz (yaw) axes was 0.77 ± 0.54, 0.76 ± 0.61, and 1.23 ± 0.95, respectively. Significant difference is observed only in one direction (Rx, p = 0.03) in the paired setup errors obtaining from OSIS and CBCT, without significant differences in five directions. CONCLUSION: OSIS is a repeatable and reliable system that can be used to detect misalignments with accuracy, which is capable of supplementing CBCT for WBRT after BCS. We believe that an OSIS may be easier to use, quicker, and reduce overall dose as this method of patient alignment does not require ionizing radiation.

Using a daily monitoring system to reduce treatment position override rates in external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our 7-year experience with a daily monitoring system to significantly reduce couch position overrides and errors in patient treatment positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment couch position override data were extracted from a radiation oncology-specific electronic medical record system from 2012 to 2018. During this period, we took several actions to reduce couch position overrides, including reducing the number of tolerance tables from 18 to 6, tightening tolerance limits, enforcing time outs, documenting reasons for overrides, and timely reviewing of overrides made from previous treatment day. The tolerance tables included treatment categories for head and neck (HN) (with/without cone beam CT [CBCT]), body (with/without CBCT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and clinical setup for electron beams. For the same time period, we also reported treatment positioning-related incidents that were recorded in our departmental incident report system. To verify our tolerance limits, we further examined couch shifts after daily kilovoltage CBCT (kV-CBCT) for the patients treated from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, the override rate decreased from 11.2% to 1.6%/year, whereas the number of fractions treated in the department increased by 23%. The annual patient positioning error rate was also reduced from 0.019% in 2012, to 0.004% in 2017 and 0% in 2018. For patients treated under daily kV-CBCT guidance from 2018 to 2021, the applied couch shifts after imaging registration that exceeded the tolerance limits were low, <1% for HN, <1.2% for body, and <2.6% for SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: The daily monitoring system, which enables a timely review of overrides, significantly reduced the number of treatment couch position overrides and ultimately resulted in a decrease in treatment positioning errors. For patients treated with daily kV-CBCT guidance, couch position shifts after CBCT image guidance demonstrated a low rate of exceeding the set tolerance.

Intra-fractional motion error during HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery on patients with brain metastases: Comparison of open and full-face clamshell-style immobilization devices.

PURPOSE: To compare the intrafractional motion error (IME) during stereotactic irradiation (STI) in patients with brain metastases immobilized using open- (Encompass) and full-face (DSPS) clamshell-style immobilization devices. METHODS: Encompass (38 patients) and DSPS (38 patients) were used for patient immobilization, and HyperArc plans with three to four non-coplanar beams were generated to deliver 25 to 35 Gy in three to five fractions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed on patients before and after the treatment. Moreover, the difference in patient position between the two CBCT images was considered as the IME. The margins to compensate for IME were calculated using the van Herk margin formula. RESULTS: For Encompass, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.1, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were -0.1, 0.0, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. For DSPS, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.2, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were -0.1, -0.1, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the IME of the two immobilization systems except in the anterior-posterior direction (p = 0.02). Moreover, no statistically significant correlation was observed between three-dimensional IME and treatment time. The margin compensation for IME was less than 1 mm for both immobilization devices. CONCLUSIONS: The IME during STI using open- and full-face clamshell-style immobilization devices is approximately equal considering the adequate accuracy in patient positioning.

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.

Accuracy of surface-guided patient setup for conventional radiotherapy of brain and nasopharynx cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) in cranial patient setup by direct comparison between optical surface imaging (OSI) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), before applying SGRT-only setup for conventional radiotherapy of brain and nasopharynx cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using CBCT as reference, SGRT setup accuracy was examined based on 269 patients (415 treatments) treated with frameless cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) during 2018-2019. Patients were immobilized in customized head molds and open-face masks and monitored using OSI during treatment. The facial skin area in planning CT was used as OSI region of interest (ROI) for automatic surface alignment and the skull was used as the landmark for automatic CBCT/CT registration. A 6 degrees of freedom (6DOF) couch was used. Immediately after CBCT setup, an OSI verification image was captured, recording the SGRT setup differences. These differences were analyzed in 6DOFs and as a function of isocenter positions away from the anterior surface to assess OSI-ROI bias. The SGRT in-room setup time was estimated and compared with CBCT and orthogonal 2D kilovoltage (2DkV) setups. RESULTS: The SGRT setup difference (magnitude) is found to be 1.0 ± 2.5 mm and 0.1˚±1.4˚ on average among 415 treatments and within 5 mm/3˚ with greater than 95% confidence level (P < 0.001). Outliers were observed for very-posterior isocenters: 15 differences (3.6%) are >5.0mm and 9 (2.2%) are >3.0˚. The setup differences show minor correlations (|r| < 0.45) between translational and rotational DOFs and a minor increasing trend (<1.0 mm) in the anterior-to-posterior direction. The SGRT setup time is 0.8 ± 0.3 min, much shorter than CBCT (5 ± 2 min) and 2DkV (2 ± 1 min) setups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that SGRT has sufficient accuracy for fast in-room patient setup and allows real-time motion monitoring for beam holding during treatment, potentially useful to guide radiotherapy of brain and nasopharynx cancer with standard fractionation.

Automated algorithm for calculation of setup corrections and planning target volume margins for offline image-guided radiotherapy protocols.

PURPOSE: Each radiotherapy center should have a site-specific planning target volume (PTV) margins and image-guided (IG) radiotherapy (IGRT) correction protocols to compensate for the geometric errors that can occur during treatment. This study developed an automated algorithm for the calculation and evaluation of these parameters from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based IG-intensity modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A MATLAB algorithm was developed to extract the setup errors in three translational directions (x, y, and z) from the data logged by the CBCT system during treatment delivery. The algorithm also calculates the resulted population setup error and PTV margin based on the van Herk margin recipe and subsequently estimates their respective values for no action level (NAL) and extended no action level (eNAL) offline correction protocols. The algorithm was tested on 25 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated using IG-IMRT. RESULTS: The algorithms calculated that the HNC patients require a PTV margin of 3.1, 2.7, and 3.2 mm in the x-, y-, and z-direction, respectively, without IGRT. The margin can be reduced to 2.0, 2.2, and 3.0 mm in the x-, y-, and z-direction, respectively, with NAL and 1.6, 1.7, and 2.2 mm in the x-, y-, and z-direction, respectively, with eNAL protocol. The results obtained were verified to be the same with the margins calculated using an Excel spreadsheet. The algorithm calculates the weekly offline setup error correction values automatically and reduces the risk of input data error observed in the spreadsheet. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the algorithm provides an automated method for optimization and reduction of PTV margin using logged setup errors from CBCT-based IGRT.

Uncertainty in the positioning of patients receiving treatment for brain metastases and wearing surgical mask underneath thermoplastic mask during COVID-19 crisis.

Thermoplastic masks, used along with surgical masks, enable immobilization methods to reduce the risk of infection in patients undergoing intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) during the COVID-19 crisis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of thermoplastic mask immobilization with a surgical mask using an ExacTrac system. Twelve patients each with brain metastases were immobilized using a thermoplastic mask and a surgical mask and only a thermoplastic mask. Two x-ray images were acquired to correct (XC) and verify (XV) the patient's position at a couch angle of 0°. Subsequently, the XC and XV images were acquired at each planned couch angle for non-coplanar beams. When the position errors were detected after couch rotation for non-coplanar beams, the errors were corrected at each planned couch angle until a clinically acceptable tolerance was attained. The position errors in the translational and rotational directions (vertical, lateral, longitudinal, pitch, roll, and yaw) were retrospectively investigated using data from the ExacTrac system database. A standard deviation of XC translational and rotational position errors with and without a surgical mask in the lateral (1.52 vs 2.07 mm), longitudinal (1.59 vs 1.87 mm), vertical (1.00 vs 1.73 mm), pitch (0.99 vs 0.79°), roll (1.24 vs 0.68°), and yaw (1.58 vs 0.90°) directions were observed at a couch angle of 0°. Most of patient positioning errors were less than 1.0 mm or 1.0° after the couch was rotated to the planned angle for non-coplanar beams. The overall absolute values of the translational and rotational XV position errors with and without the surgical mask were less than 0.5 mm and 0.5°, respectively. This study showed that a thermoplastic mask with a surgical mask is a feasible immobilization technique for brain SRS/SRT patients using the ExacTrac system.