A prospective observational study evaluating two patient immobilisation methods in lung stereotactic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to assess inter- and intrafraction errors for two patient immobilisation devices in the context of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy: a vacuum cushion and a simple arm support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients who were treated with lung stereotactic body radiation therapy in supine position with arms above their head were included in the study. Ten patients were setup in a vacuum cushion (Bluebag™, Elekta) and ten other patients with a simple arm support (Posirest™, Civco). A pretreatment four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography and a post-treatment three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography were acquired to compare positioning and immobilisation accuracy. Based on a rigid registration with the planning computed tomography on the spine at the target level, translational and rotational errors were reported. RESULTS: The median number of fractions per treatment was 5 (range: 3-10). Mean interfraction errors based on 112 four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies were similar for both setups with deviations less than or equal to 1.3mm in lateral and vertical direction and 1.2° in roll and yaw. For longitudinal translational errors, mean interfraction errors were 0.7mm with vacuum cushion and -3.9mm with arm support. Based on 111 three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies, mean lateral, longitudinal and vertical intrafraction errors were -0.1mm, -0.2mm and 0.0mm respectively (SD: 1.0, 1.2 and 1.0mm respectively) for the patients setup with vacuum cushion, and mean vertical, longitudinal and lateral intrafraction errors were -0.3mm, -0.7mm and 0.1mm respectively (SD: 2.3, 1.8 and 1.4mm respectively) for the patients setup with arm support. Intrafraction errors means were not statistically different between both positions but standard deviations were statistically larger with arm support. CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed similar inter and intrafraction mean deviations between both positioning but a large variability in intrafraction observed with arm support suggested a more accurate immobilization with vacuum cushion.

Utility of a skin marker-less setup procedure using surface-guided imaging: a comparison with the traditional laser-based setup in extremity irradiation.

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a skin marker-less patient setup using a surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for extremity radiotherapy. Twenty-five patients who underwent radiotherapy to the extremities were included in this retrospective study. The first group consisted of 10 patients and underwent a traditional setup procedure using skin marks and lasers. The second group comprised 15 patients and had a skin marker-less setup procedure that used an SGRT system only. To compare the two setup procedures for setup accuracy, the mean 3D vector shift magnitude was 0.9 mm for the traditional setup procedure and 0.5 mm for the skin marker-less setup procedure (p < 0.01). In addition, SGRT systems have been suggested to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of patient setups and consistently reduce interfractional setup errors. These results indicate that a skin marker-less patient setup procedure using an SGRT system is useful for extremity irradiation.

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.

Setup time analysis for stereotactic body radiotherapy in O-ring linear accelerator without rotational correction.

This study analyse setup time (ST) and frequency of on-board imaging for stereotactic abdomen (liver, stomach), lung, and spine radiotherapy in the absence of automatic rotational correction. Total 53 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) patients, 28 of abdomen, 19 lung, and 6 spine treated for 230 sessions in O-ring gantry accelerator were evaluated for ST analysis. The mean setup time for all patients, abdomen, lung, and spine cases were 7.7 ± 7.4 min, 9.2 ± 9.2 min, 6.3 ± 4.1 min, and 5.5 ± 3.3 min, respectively. Median number CBCT was 2. 96% of cases had a CBCT between 1 and 3, and 9 (4%) had ≥ 4 CBCTs. Overall, 38.1%, 35.5%, 22.1%, 2.2%, and 2.2% of setup time fall into window of 0-5 min, 5-10 min, 10-20 min, 20-30 min, and > 30 min. Most difficult challenge is to negotiate with unknown rotational errors. It will be easy to dealt with them without automatic rotational correction if values are known.

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.

Validation of Fully Automated Robust Multicriterial Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer IMPT.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to compare robust intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans, automatically generated with wish-list-based multicriterial optimization as implemented in Erasmus-iCycle, with manually created robust clinical IMPT plans for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three patients with head and neck cancer were retrospectively included. All patients were previously treated with a manually created IMPT plan with 7000 cGy dose prescription to the primary tumor (clinical target volume [CTV]7000) and 5425 cGy dose prescription to the bilateral elective volumes (CTV5425). Plans had a 4-beam field configuration and were generated with scenario-based robust optimization (21 scenarios, 3-mm setup error, and ±3% density uncertainty for the CTVs). Three clinical plans were used to configure the Erasmus-iCycle wish-list for automated generation of robust IMPT plans for the other 30 included patients, in line with clinical planning requirements. Automatically and manually generated IMPT plans were compared for (robust) target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). No manual fine-tuning of automatically generated plans was performed. RESULTS: For all automatically generated plans, voxel-wise minimum D98% values for the CTVs were within clinical constraints and similar to manual plans. All investigated OAR parameters were favorable in the automatically generated plans (all P < .001). Median reductions in mean dose to OARs went up to 667 cGy for the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle, and median reductions in D0.03cm3 in serial OARs ranged up to 1795 cGy for the spinal cord surface. The observed lower mean dose in parallel OARs resulted in statistically significant lower NTCP for xerostomia (grade ≥2: 34.4% vs 38.0%; grade ≥3: 9.0% vs 10.2%) and dysphagia (grade ≥2: 11.8% vs 15.0%; grade ≥3: 1.8% vs 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Erasmus-iCycle was able to produce IMPT dose distributions fully automatically with similar (robust) target coverage and improved OAR doses and NTCPs compared with clinical manual planning, with negligible hands-on planning workload.

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.

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.

Setup accuracy and margins for surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) of head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvic target volumes.

The goal of the study was to evaluate the inter- and intrafractional patient setup accuracy of target volumes located in the head, thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic regions when using SGRT, by comparing it with that of laser alignment using patient skin marks, and to calculate the corresponding setup margins. A total of 2303 radiotherapy fractions of 183 patients were analyzed. All patients received daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography scans (kV-CBCT) for online verification. From November 2019 until September 2020, patient setup was performed using laser alignment with patient skin marks, and since October 2020, using SGRT. The setup accuracy was measured by the six degrees of freedom (6DOF) corrections based on the kV-CBCT. The corresponding setup margins were calculated using the van Herk formula. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the impact of multiple factors on the setup accuracy. The inter-fractional patient setup accuracy was significantly better using SGRT compared to laser alignment with skin marks. The mean three-dimensional vector of the translational setup deviation of tumors located in the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis using SGRT was 3.6 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 mm to 3.9 mm) and 4.5 mm using laser alignment with skin marks (95% CI 3.9 mm to 5.2 mm; p = 0.001). Calculation of setup margins for the combined inter- and intra-fractional setup error revealed similar setup margins using SGRT and kV-CBCT once a week compared to laser alignment with skin marks and kV-CBCT every other day. Furthermore, comparable setup margins were found for open-face thermoplastic masks with AlignRT compared to closed-face thermoplastic masks with laser alignment and mask marks. SGRT opens the possibility to reduce the number of CBCTs while maintaining sufficient setup accuracy. The advantage is a reduction of imaging dose and overall treatment time. Open-face thermoplastic masks may be used instead of closed-face thermoplastic masks to increase the patient's comfort.

In Silico Studies of the Impact of Rotational Errors on Translation Shifts and Dose Distribution in Image-Guided Radiotherapy.

Objective: To compare the 6-dimensional errors of different immobilization devices and body regions based on 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomography for image-guided radiotherapy and to further quantitatively evaluate the impact of rotational corrections on translational shifts and dose distribution based on anthropomorphic phantoms. Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety patients with cone beam computed tomographies from 3835 fractions were retrospectively analyzed for brain, head & neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and breast cases. A phantom experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of rotational errors on translational shifts using cone beam computed tomography and the registration system. For the dosimetry study, pitch rotations were simulated by adjusting the breast bracket by ±2.5°. Roll and yaw rotations were simulated by rotating the gantry and couch in the planning system by ±3.0°, respectively. The original plan for the breast region was designed in the computed tomography image space without rotation. With the same planning parameters, the original plan was transplanted into the image space with different rotations for dose recalculation. The effect of these errors on the breast target and organs at risk was assessed by dose-volume histograms. Results: Most of the mean rotational errors in the breast region were >1°. A single uncorrected yaw of 3° caused a change of 2.9 mm in longitudinal translation. A phantom study for the breast region demonstrated that when the pitch rotations were -2.5° and 2.5° and roll and yaw were both 3°, the reductions in the planning target volumes-V50 Gy were 20.07% and 29.58% of the original values, respectively. When the pitch rotation was +2.5°, the left lung V5 Gy and heart Dmean were 7.49% and 165.76 Gy larger, respectively, than the original values. Conclusions: Uncorrected rotations may cause changes in the values and directions of translational shifts. Rotational corrections may improve the patient setup and dose distribution accuracy.

Accumulated Dose Deviation of Rotational and Residual Setup Errors on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using MIM Treated by Helical Tomotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To analyze the relationship between the rotational and residual setup errors and the dose deviation on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated by helical tomotherapy (HT). METHODS: From 25 July 2017 to 20 August 2019, 16 treated NPC patients were enrolled in the study. These patients were scanned with full target range megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) every other day. Adaptive radiotherapy function application software MIM7.1.3 were used to accumulate the actual dose. The dose deviation with the initial plan dose of the patients' target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared, and the correlation between the dose change and the setup errors (rotational setup errors and neck residual setup error) was analyzed. RESULTS: Translational setup errors increased farther away from the head. Statistically significant difference among 3 groups was achieved in the directions of left-right (P < .001) and anteroposterior (P < .001) by analysis of variance test. Compared with the initial plan dose, the actual accumulated dose of the target area decreased with the actual exposure dose of the OAR increased. However, most of the dosimetric parameters differed by less than 5%. No correlation was found between dose deviation values and the translational setup errors of target. However, sagittal rotational setup errors (pitch) had a positive relationship (P < .05) with the avearge dose of PTVnd (L) (r = 0.885), PTVnd(R) (r = 0.547) PTV1(r = 0.633) and PTV2(r = 0.584). Transverse rotational setup errors (roll) had a positive relationship (P < .05) with the avearge dose of PTVnd(R) (r = 0.593), PTV1(r = 0.505) and PTV2(r = 0.662). CONCLUSIONS: Dose deviation between the actual accumulated and initial plan is not negligible, but most indicators difference is less than 5%, NPC patients treated by HT with MVCT correction setup errors every other day did not need adaptive radiotherapy model unless got rapid tumor shrinkage or weight loss. Moreover, to minimize the dose deviation, more attention should be paid to the reduction of pitch, roll, and residual error of cervical vertebrae during body positioning.

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.

Setup uncertainties and appropriate setup margins in the head-tilted supine position of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT).

Various applications of head-tilting techniques in whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) have been introduced. However, a study on the setup uncertainties and margins in head-tilting techniques has not been reported. This study evaluated the setup uncertainties and determined the appropriate planning target volume (PTV) margins for patients treated in the head-tilted supine (ht-SP) and conventional supine position (c-SP) in WBRT. Thirty patients who received WBRT at our institution between October 2020 and May 2021 in the c-SP and ht-SP were investigated. The DUON head mask (60124, Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) was used in the c-SP, and a thermoplastic U-Frame Mask (R420U, Klarity Medical & Equipment Co. Ltd., Lan Yu, China) was used in the ht-SP. Daily setup verification using planning computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT was corrected for translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (yaw) errors. In the c-SP, the means of systematic errors were -0.80, 0.79, and 0.37 mm and random errors were 0.27, 0.54, and 0.39 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively. Whereas, for the ht-SP, the means of systematic errors were -0.07, 0.73, and -0.63 mm, and random errors were 0.75, 1.39, 1.02 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively. The PTV margins were calculated using Stroom et al.'s [2Σ+0.7σ] and van Herk et al.'s recipe [2.5Σ+0.7σ]. Appropriate PTV margins with van Herk et al.'s recipe in WBRT were <2 mm and 1.5° in the c-SP and <3 mm and 2° in the ht-SP in the translational and rotational directions, respectively. Although the head tilt in the supine position requires more margin, it can be applied as a sufficiently stable and effective position in radiotherapy.

Comparison of setup errors of immobilization devices for thoracic radiotherapy.

Performance of thoracic radiotherapy may be assisted by the use of thoracoabdominal flat immobilization devices (TAFIDs) and integrated cervicothoracic immobilization devices (ICTIDs). This study was performed to compare setup errors of TAFIDs and ICTIDs. Forty-four patients with lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed; 22 patients were immobilized with a TAFID and 22 with an ICTID. In total, 343 cone-beam computed tomography images of these patients were collected for radiotherapy setup. The 3-dimensional setup errors and the displacement of the acromioclavicular joint against the supraclavicular region were calculated. An independent-samples t-test and rank-sum test were used for statistical analyses. The translational setup errors of the TAFID group vs ICTID group in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions were 0.14 ± 0.17 vs 0.14 ± 0.16 cm (p = 0.364), 0.23 ± 0.26 vs 0.15 ± 0.15 cm (p = 0.000), and 0.16 ± 0.15 vs 0.12 ± 0.14 cm (p = 0.049), respectively. The relative displacement of the acromioclavicular joint against the supraclavicular joint in the LR, SI, and AP directions were 0.10 ± 0.12 vs 0.09 ± 0.10 cm (p = 0.176), 0.13 ± 0.13 vs 0.11 ± 0.12 cm (p = 0.083), and 0.17 ± 0.16 vs 0.12 ± 0.11 cm (p = 0.001), respectively. The overall displacement of the supraclavicular region was 0.28 ± 0.19 vs 0.23 ± 0.15 cm (p < 0.001). The recommended planning target volume margins in the LR, SI, and AP directions were 0.46 vs 0.74 cm, 0.51 vs 0.47 cm, and 0.49 vs 0.41 cm, respectively. For patients with lung cancer, using an ICTID can reduce setup errors in the SI direction and displacements of the acromioclavicular joint and supraclavicular region compared with a TAFID. Therefore, an ICTID is preferred for patients with lung cancer with supraclavicular target volume.

Initial clinical experience of surface guided stereotactic radiation therapy with open-face mask immobilization for improving setup accuracy: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To propose a specific surface guided stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatment procedure with open-face mask immobilization and evaluate the initial clinical experience in improving setup accuracy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The treatment records of 48 SRT patients with head lesions were retrospectively analyzed. For each patient, head immobilization was achieved with a double-shell open-face mask. The anterior shell was left open to expose the forehead, nose, eyes and cheekbones. The exposed facial area was used as region-of-interest for surface tracking by AlignRT (VisionRT Inc, UK). The posterior shell provided a sturdy and personalized headrest. Patient initial setup was guided by 6DoF real-time deltas (RTD) using the reference surface obtained from the skin contour delineated on the planning CT images. The endpoint of initial setup was 1 mm in translational RTD and 1 degree in rotational RTD. CBCT guidance was performed to derive the initial setup errors, and couch shifts for setup correction were applied prior to treatment delivery. CBCT couch shifts, AlignRT RTD values, repositioning rate and setup time were analyzed. RESULTS: The absolute values of median (maximal) CBCT couch shifts were 0.4 (1.3) mm in VRT, 0.1 (2.5) mm in LNG, 0.2 (1.6) mm in LAT, 0.1(1.2) degree in YAW, 0.2 (1.4) degree in PITCH and 0.1(1.3) degree in ROLL. The couch shifts and AlignRT RTD values exhibited highly agreement except in VRT and PITCH (p value < 0.01), of which the differences were as small as negligible. We did not find any case of patient repositioning that was due to out-of-tolerance setup errors, i.e., 3 mm and 2 degree. The surface guided setup time ranged from 52 to 174 s, and the mean and median time was 97.72 s and 94 s respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed surface guided SRT procedure with open-face mask immobilization is a step forward in improving patient comfort and positioning accuracy in the same process. Minimized initial setup errors and repositioning rate had been achieved with reasonably efficiency for routine clinical practice.

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.

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.

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.

Patient setup accuracy in DIBH radiotherapy of breast cancer with lymph node inclusion using surface tracking and image guidance.

Studying setup accuracy in breast cancer patients with axillary lymph node inclusion in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) after patient setup with surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Breast cancer patients (N = 51) were treated (50 Gy in 25 fractions) with axillary lymph nodes within the planning target volume (PTV). Patient setup was initiated with tattoos and lasers, and further adjusted with SGRT. The DIBH guidance was based on SGRT. Orthogonal and/or tangential imaging was analyzed for residual position errors of bony landmarks, the breath-hold level (BHL), the skin outline, and the heart; and setup margins were calculated for the PTV. The calculated PTV margins were 4.3 to 6.3 and 2.8 to 4.6 mm before and after orthogonal imaging, respectively. The residual errors of the heart were 3.6 ± 2.2 mm and 2.5 ± 2.4 mm before and 3.0 ± 2.5 and 2.9 ± 2.3 mm after orthogonal imaging in the combined anterior-posterior/lateral and the cranio-caudal directions, respectively, in tangential images. The humeral head did not benefit from daily IGRT, but SGRT guided it to the correct location. We presented a slightly complicated but highly accurate workflow for DIBH treatments. The residual position errors after both SGRT and IGRT were excellent compared to previous literature. With well-planned SGRT, IGRT brings only slight improvements to systematic accuracy. However, with the calculated PTV margins and the number of outliers, imaging cannot be omitted despite SGRT, unless the PTV margins are re-evaluated.

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.