Analytical setup margin for spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy based on measured errors.

BACKGROUND: No consensus currently exists about the correct margin size to use for spinal SBRT. Margins have been proposed to account for various errors individually, but not with all errors combined to result in a single margin value. The purpose of this work was to determine a setup margin for five-fraction spinal SBRT based on known errors during radiotherapy to achieve at least 90% coverage of the clinical target volume with the prescription dose for at least 90% of patients and not exceed a 30 Gy point dose or 23 Gy to 10% of the spinal cord subvolume. METHODS: The random and systematic error components of intrafraction motion, residual setup error, and end-to-end system accuracy were measured. The patient's surface displacement was measured to quantify intrafraction motion, the residual setup error was quantified by re-registering accepted daily cone beam computed tomography setup images, and the displacement between measured and planned dose profiles in a phantom quantified the end-to-end system accuracy. These errors and parameters were used to identify the minimum acceptable margin size. The margin recommendation was validated by assessing dose delivery across 140 simulated patient plans suffering from various random shifts representative of the measured errors. RESULTS: The errors were quantified in three dimensions and the analytical margin generated was 2.4 mm. With this margin applied in the superior/inferior direction only, at least 90% of the CTV was covered with the prescription dose for 96% of the 140 patients simulated with minimal negative effect on the spinal cord dose levels. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this work support that a 2.4 mm margin applied in the superior/inferior direction can achieve at least 90% coverage of the CTV for at least 90% of dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy spinal SBRT patients in the presence of errors when immobilized with vacuum bags.

Effect of Surgical Mask on Setup Error in Head and Neck Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: With the widespread prevalence of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), cancer patients are suggested to wear a surgical mask during radiation treatment. In this study, cone beam CT (CBCT) was used to investigate the effect of surgical mask on setup errors in head and neck radiotherapy. METHODS: A total of 91 patients with head and neck tumors were selected. CBCT was performed to localize target volume after patient set up. The images obtained by CBCT before treatment were automatically registered with CT images and manually fine-tuned. The setup errors of patients in 6 directions of Vrt, Lng, Lat, Pitch, Roll and Rotation were recorded. The patients were divided into groups according to whether they wore the surgical mask, the type of immobilization mask used and the location of the isocenter. The setup errors of patients were calculated. A t-test was performed to detect whether it was statistically significant. RESULTS: In the 4 groups, the standard deviation in the directions of Lng and Pitch of the with surgical mask group were all higher than that in the without surgical mask group. In the head-neck-shoulder mask group, the mean in the Lng direction of the with surgical mask group was larger than that of the without surgical mask group. In the lateral isocenter group, the mean in the Lng and Pitch directions of the with surgical mask group were larger than that of the without surgical mask group. The t-test results showed that there was significant difference in the setup error between the 2 groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.013, respectively) only in the Lng and Pitch directions of the head-neck-shoulder mask group. In addition, the setup error of 6 patients with immobilization open masks exhibited no distinguished difference from that of the patients with regular immobilization masks. CONCLUSION: In the head and neck radiotherapy patients, the setup error was affected by wearing surgical mask. It is recommended that the immobilization open mask should be used when the patient cannot finish the whole treatment with a surgical mask.

The impact of training and professional collaboration on the interobserver variation of lung cancer delineations: a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of training and interprofessional collaboration on the interobserver variation in the delineation of the lung gross tumor volume (GTVp) and lymph node (GTVln). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight target volume delineations courses were organized between 2008 and 2013. Specialists and trainees in radiation oncology were asked to delineate the GTVp and GTVln on four representative CT images of a patient diagnosed with lung cancer individually prior each course (baseline), together as group (interprofessional collaboration) and post-training. The mean delineated volume and local standard deviation (local SD) between the contours for each course group were calculated and compared with the expert delineations. RESULTS: A total 410 delineations were evaluated. The average local SD was lowest for the interprofessional collaboration (GTVp = 0.194 cm, GTVln = 0.371 cm) followed by the post-training (GTVp = 0.244 cm, GTVln = 0.607 cm) and baseline delineations (GTVp = 0.274 cm, GTVln: 0.718 cm). The mean delineated volume was smallest for the interprofessional (GTVp = 4.93 cm3, GTVln = 4.34 cm3) followed by the post-training (GTVp = 5.68 cm3, GTVln = 5.47 cm3) and baseline delineations (GTVp = 6.65 cm3, GTVln = 6.93 cm3). All delineations were larger than the expert for both GTVp and GTVln (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that image interpretational differences can lead to large interobserver variation particularly when delineating the GTVln. Interprofessional collaboration was found to have the greatest impact on reducing interobserver variation in the delineation of the GTVln. This highlights the need to develop a clinical workflow so as to ensure that difficult cases are reviewed routinely by a second radiation oncologist or radiologist so as to minimize the risk of geographical tumor miss and unnecessary irradiation to normal tissue.

MRI-based tumor inter-fraction motion statistics for rectal cancer boost radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, dose escalation is currently being investigated in a large number of studies. Since there is little known on gross tumor volume (GTV) inter-fraction motion for rectal cancer, a wide variety in margins is used. Purpose of this study is to quantify GTV inter-fraction motion statistics on different timescales and to give estimates of planning target volume (PTV) margins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients, diagnosed with rectal cancer, were included. To investigate motion from week-to-week, 16 patients underwent a pretreatment and five weekly MRIs, prior to a radiotherapy (RT) fraction of the chemoradiotherapy treatment. To investigate motion from day-to-day, the remaining 16 patients underwent five daily MRIs before each fraction in one week of RT. GTV was delineated on all scans according to guidelines. Scans were aligned on bony anatomy with the first MRI. For both datasets separately, GTV inter-fraction motion was determined based on center-of-gravity displacement. Therefrom, systematic and random errors were determined in left/right (LR), anterior/posterior and cranial/caudal (CC) direction. PTV margin estimates were calculated and evaluated on GTV coverage. RESULTS: Systematic and random errors were found in the range of 2.3-4.8 mm and 1.5-3.3 mm from week-to-week, and 1.8-4.5 mm and 1.8-4.0 mm from day-to-day, respectively. On both timescales, similar motion patterns were found; the most motion was observed in CC whilst the least motion was observed in LR. On the week-to-week data more systematic and less random motion was observed compared to the day-to-day data. Overall, only slight differences in margin estimates were found. Derived PTV margin estimates were found to give adequate GTV coverage. CONCLUSION: GTV inter-fraction motion, on a week-to-week and day-to-day timescale, can be accounted for using motion statistics presented in this study.

Unusual occurrence reporting system: Sharing a ten years experience from a tertiary care JCIA accredited university hospital.

PURPOSE: Identifying a true measure of safety is challenging in radiation oncology. A culture of unusual reporting may however be used as an indirect measure for it. The purpose of this study is to share our experience of unusual occurrence reporting system, established in the Radiation Oncology section since 2006, the first of this nature in Pakistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data is collected over the last ten years. An in-house online reporting system has been developed for reporting unusual events. All the reported events are evaluated retrospectively. The stage of unusual occurrence along the radiation therapy process, possible causes, severity and preventive measures taken are discussed. RESULTS: Analysis of the 501 unusual occurrences reported over the last ten years has shown a substantial decrease in the number of significant mistakes observed. Of the total, 57 % unusual occurrences have been reported by radiation therapy technologists, including treatment preparation processes. Oversight is supposed to be the most common cause for unusual occurrences. CONCLUSIONS: The ten years experience with reporting and documenting of unusual occurrences resulted in a safety culture where every individual is willing to share any type of incident with a free well. Our experience at the Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH) shows that the major reason for the occurrence of incidents was oversight. The majority of unusual occurrences were reported by radiation therapy technologists, as expected, since they handle the bulk of the treatment planning process.

Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center.

PURPOSE: To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142). RESULTS: An average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.

Carbon-Ion Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment With Gated Markerless Tumor Tracking: An Analysis of Positional Accuracy.

PURPOSE: Having implemented amplitude-based respiratory gating for scanned carbon-ion beam therapy, we sought to evaluate its effect on positional accuracy and throughput. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 10 patients with tumors of the lung and liver participated in the first clinical trials at our center. Treatment planning was conducted with 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) under free-breathing conditions. The planning target volume (PTV) was calculated by adding a 2- to 3-mm setup margin outside the clinical target volume (CTV) within the gating window. The treatment beam was on when the CTV was within the PTV. Tumor position was detected in real time with a markerless tumor tracking system using paired x-ray fluoroscopic imaging units. RESULTS: The patient setup error (mean ± SD) was 1.1 ± 1.2 mm/0.6 ± 0.4°. The mean internal gating accuracy (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.5 mm. If external gating had been applied to this treatment, the mean gating accuracy (95% CI) would have been 4.1 mm. The fluoroscopic radiation doses (mean ± SD) were 23.7 ± 21.8 mGy per beam and less than 487.5 mGy total throughout the treatment course. The setup, preparation, and irradiation times (mean ± SD) were 8.9 ± 8.2 min, 9.5 ± 4.6 min, and 4.0 ± 2.4 min, respectively. The treatment room occupation time was 36.7 ± 67.5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Internal gating had a much higher accuracy than external gating. By the addition of a setup margin of 2 to 3 mm, internal gating positional error was less than 2.2 mm at 95% CI.

Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy.

PURPOSE: To explore site- and clinician-level factors associated with protocol violations requiring real-time-review (RTR) resubmission in a multicenter clinical trial to help tailor future quality assurance (QA) protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RAVES (Radiation Therapy-Adjuvant vs Early Salvage) (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) is a randomized trial comparing adjuvant with early salvage radiation therapy in men with positive surgical margins or pT3 disease after prostatectomy. Quality assurance in RAVES required each clinician and site to submit a credentialing dummy run (DR) and for each patient's radiation therapy plan to undergo external RTR before treatment. Prospectively defined major violations from trial protocol required remedy and resubmission. Site and clinician factors associated with RTR resubmission were examined using hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Data were collected from 171 consecutive patients, treated by 46 clinicians at 32 hospitals. There were 47 RTR resubmissions (27%) due to 65 major violations. The relative rate of resubmission decreased by 29% per year as the study progressed (odds ratio OR. 0.71, P=.02). The majority of resubmissions were due to contouring violations (39 of 65) and dosimetric violations (22 of 65). For each additional patient accrued, significant decreases in RTR resubmission were seen at both clinician level (OR 0.75, P=.02) and site level (OR 0.72, P=.01). The rate of resubmission due to dosimetric violations was only 1.6% after the first 5 patients. Use of IMRT was associated with lower rates of resubmission compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (OR 0.38, P=.05). CONCLUSION: Several low- and high-risk factors that may assist with tailoring future clinical trial QA were identified. Because the real-time resubmission rate was largely independent of the credentialing exercise, some form of RTR QA is recommended. The greatest benefit from QA was derived early in trial activation and clinician experience.

Technical quality assurance during the TROG 03.04 RADAR prostate radiotherapy trial: are the results reflected in observed toxicity rates?

INTRODUCTION: Multicentre radiotherapy clinical trials can incorporate quality assurance (QA) procedures for ensuring consistent application of the trial protocol in the planning, delivery and reporting of participant treatments. Subsequently detected variations from trial protocol have previously been shown to reduce treatment efficacy, although little has been shown for toxicity rates. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of QA measures and protocol variations on toxicity incidence in the context of a prostate radiotherapy trial. METHODS: Using QA records from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial, the impact of variations on gastrointestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) toxicities was investigated. RESULTS: Protocol variation rates were lower than reported in previous studies, and showed little correlation with GI toxicity outcomes. Variations classified as 'major' showed a non-significant trend for increased toxicity relative to those classified as 'minor'. Results from a Level III phantom-based dosimetry study showed some correlation with GI toxicity, whereas ranking on a set-up accuracy study did not impact on toxicity. Toxicity in general increased with the number of participants accrued per centre, at odds with previous reports relating to disease progression, with a potential link to increases in low-mid-range rectal doses in the cohort from higher-accruing centres. No QA-related variables correlated with GU toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Besides non-significant trends, minimal association was observed between QA variables and toxicity rates for the RADAR trial. The intention of the trial's QA programme was to reduce treatment variations and minimise toxicity in the context of a relevantly advanced treatment approach.

A retrospective tomotherapy image-guidance study: analysis of more than 9,000 MVCT scans for ten different tumor sites.

The purpose of this study was to quantify the systematic and random errors for various disease sites when daily MVCT scans are acquired, and to analyze alterna- tive off-line verification protocols (OVP) with respect to the patient setup accuracy achieved. Alignment data from 389 patients (9,418 fractions) treated at ten differ- ent anatomic sites with daily image-guidance (IG) on a helical tomotherapy unit were analyzed. Moreover, six OVP were retrospectively evaluated. For each OVP, the frequency of the residual setup errors and additional margins required were calculated for the treatment sessions without image guidance. The magnitude of the three-dimensional vector displacement and its frequency were evaluated for all OVP. From daily IG, the main global systematic error was in the vertical direction (4.4-9.4 mm), and all rotations were negligible (less than 0.5°) for all anatomic sites. The lowest systematic and random errors were found for H&N and brain patients. All OVP were effective in reducing the mean systematic error to less than 1 mm and 0.2° in all directions and roll corrections for almost all treatment sites. The treatment margins needed to adapt the residual errors should be increased by 2-5 mm for brain and H&N, around 8 mm in the vertical direction for the other anatomic sites, and up to 19 mm in the longitudinal direction for abdomen patients. Almost 70% of the sessions presented a setup error of 3 mm for OVPs with an imaging frequency above 50%. Only for brain patients it would be feasible to apply an OVP because the residual setup error could be compensated for with a slight margin increase. However, daily imaging should be used for anatomic sites of difficult immobilization and/or large interfraction movement. 

A real-time safety and quality reporting system: assessment of clinical data and staff participation.

PURPOSE: To report on the use of an incident learning system in a radiation oncology clinic, along with a review of staff participation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: On September 24, 2010, our department initiated an online real-time voluntary reporting system for safety issues, called the Radiation Oncology Quality Reporting System (ROQRS). We reviewed these reports from the program's inception through January 18, 2013 (2 years, 3 months, 25 days) to assess error reports (defined as both near-misses and incidents of inaccurate treatment). RESULTS: During the study interval, there were 60,168 fractions of external beam radiation therapy and 955 brachytherapy procedures. There were 298 entries in the ROQRS system, among which 108 errors were reported. There were 31 patients with near-misses reported and 27 patients with incidents of inaccurate treatment reported. These incidents of inaccurate treatment occurred in 68 total treatment fractions (0.11% of treatments delivered during the study interval). None of these incidents of inaccurate treatment resulted in deviation from the prescription by 5% or more. A solution to the errors was documented in ROQRS in 65% of the cases. Errors occurred as repeated errors in 22% of the cases. A disproportionate number of the incidents of inaccurate treatment were due to improper patient setup at the linear accelerator (P<.001). Physician participation in ROQRS was nonexistent initially, but improved after an education program. CONCLUSIONS: Incident learning systems are a useful and practical means of improving safety and quality in patient care.

Risk factors for radiotherapy incidents and impact of an online electronic reporting system.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To ascertain the rate, type, significance, trends and the potential risk factors associated with radiotherapy incidents in a large academic department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for all radiotherapy activities from July 2001 to January 2011 were reviewed from radiotherapy incident reporting forms. Patient and treatment data were obtained from the radiotherapy record and verification database (MOSAIQ) and the patient database (HOSPRO). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine variables associated with radiotherapy incidents. RESULTS: In that time, 65,376 courses of radiotherapy were delivered with a reported incident rate of 2.64 per 100 courses. The rate of incidents per course increased (1.96 per 100 courses to 3.52 per 100 courses, p<0.001) whereas the proportion of reported incidents resulting in >5% deviation in dose (10.50 to 2.75%, p<0.001) had decreased after the introduction of an online electronic reporting system. The following variables were associated with an increased rate of incidents: afternoon treatment time, paediatric patients, males, inpatients, palliative plans, head-and-neck, skin, sarcoma and haematological malignancies. In general, complex plans were associated with higher incidence rates. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy incidents were infrequent and most did not result in significant dose deviation. A number of risk factors were identified and these could be used to highlight high-risk cases in the future. Introduction of an online electronic reporting system resulted in a significant increase in the number of incidents being reported.

Dose error from deviation of dwell time and source position for high dose-rate 192Ir in remote afterloading system.

The influence of deviations in dwell times and source positions for (192)Ir HDR-RALS was investigated. The potential dose errors for various kinds of brachytherapy procedures were evaluated. The deviations of dwell time ΔT of a (192)Ir HDR source for the various dwell times were measured with a well-type ionization chamber. The deviations of source position ΔP were measured with two methods. One is to measure actual source position using a check ruler device. The other is to analyze peak distances from radiographic film irradiated with 20 mm gap between the dwell positions. The composite dose errors were calculated using Gaussian distribution with ΔT and ΔP as 1σ of the measurements. Dose errors depend on dwell time and distance from the point of interest to the dwell position. To evaluate the dose error in clinical practice, dwell times and point of interest distances were obtained from actual treatment plans involving cylinder, tandem-ovoid, tandem-ovoid with interstitial needles, multiple interstitial needles, and surface-mold applicators. The ΔT and ΔP were 32 ms (maximum for various dwell times) and 0.12 mm (ruler), 0.11 mm (radiographic film). The multiple interstitial needles represent the highest dose error of 2%, while the others represent less than approximately 1%. Potential dose error due to dwell time and source position deviation can depend on kinds of brachytherapy techniques. In all cases, the multiple interstitial needles is most susceptible.

A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of different immobilization systems, which may affect set-up errors, remains uncertain. Immobilization systems and their corresponding set-up errors influence the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins and thus may result in undesirable treatment outcomes. This study compared the reproducibility of patient positioning with Hipfix system and whole body alpha cradle with respect to localized prostate cancer and investigated the existing CTV-PTV margins in the clinical oncology departments of two hospitals. METHODS: Forty sets of data of patients with localized T1-T3 prostate cancer were randomly selected from two regional hospitals, with 20 patients immobilized by a whole-body alpha cradle system and 20 by a thermoplastic Hipfix system. Seven sets of the anterior-posterior (AP), cranial-caudal (CC) and medial-lateral (ML) deviations were collected from each patient. The reproducibility of patient positioning within the two hospitals was compared using a total vector error (TVE) parameter. In addition, CTV-PTV margins were computed using van Herk's formula. The resulting values were compared to the current CTV-PTV margins in both hospitals. RESULTS: The TVE values were 5.1 and 2.8 mm for the Hipfix and the whole-body alpha cradle systems respectively. TVE associated with the whole-body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly less than the Hipfix system (p < 0.05). The CC axis in the Hipfix system attained the highest frequency of large (23.6%) and serious (7.9%) set-up errors. The calculated CTV to PTV margin was 8.3, 1.9 and 2.3 mm for the Hipfix system, and 2.1, 3.4 and 1.8 mm for the whole body alpha cradle in CC, ML and AP axes respectively. All but one (CC axis using Hipfix) margin calculated did not exceed the corresponding hospital protocol. The whole body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly better than the Hipfix system in terms of reproducibility (p < 0.05), especially in the CC axis. CONCLUSIONS: The whole body alpha cradle system was more reproducible than the Hipfix system. In particular, the difference in CC axis contributed most to the results and the current CC margin for the Hipfix system might be considered as inadequate.

Impact of body-mass factors on setup displacement in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy using daily on-line image guidance.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact of body-mass factors (BMF) before radiotherapy and changes during radiotherapy on the magnitude of setup displacement in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: The clinical data of 30 patients with HNC was analyzed using the alignment data from daily on-line on-board imaging from image-guided radiotherapy. BMFs included body weight, body height, and the circumference and bilateral thickness of the neck. Changes in the BMFs during treatment were retrieved from cone beam computed tomography at the 10th and 20th fractions. Setup errors for each patient were assessed by systematic error (SE) and random error (RE) through the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions, and couch rotation (CR). Using the median values of the BMFs as a cutoff, the impact of the factors on the magnitude of displacement was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: A higher body weight before radiotherapy correlated with a greater AP-SE (p = 0.045), SI-RE (p = 0.023), and CR-SE (p = 0.033). A longer body height was associated with a greater SI-RE (p = 0.002). A performance status score of 1 or 2 was related to a greater AP-SE (p = 0.043), AP-RE (p = 0.015), and SI-RE (p = 0.043). Among the ratios of the BMFs during radiotherapy, the values at the level of mastoid tip at the 20th fraction were associated with greater setup errors. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce setup errors in patients with HNC receiving RT, the use of on-line image-guided radiotherapy is recommended for patients with a large body weight or height, and a performance status score of 1-2. In addition, adaptive planning should be considered for those who have a large reduction ratio in the circumference (<1) and thickness (<0.94) over the level of the mastoid tip during the 20th fraction of treatment.

Assessment of residual setup errors for anatomical sub-structures in image-guided head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To quantify residual setup errors (RSE) and required planning target volumes (PTV) margins in head-and-neck cancer (HNC) radiotherapy when using daily image guidance (IG) and less-than-daily IG protocols. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Daily on-line kV-image registrations of 80 HNC patients (2640 imaged treatment fractions) were retrospectively studied to analyze RSE. Less-than-daily imaging protocols, using different action levels, were simulated on the data. To quantify local RSE; single rigid bony structures were defined as landmarks. The RSEs and required PTV margins were computed for each sub-structure with and without daily IG. RESULTS: For less-than-daily IG protocols the setup accuracy was more dependent on frequent imaging throughout the treatment course than the number of initially imaged fractions. With daily IG the RSE of the sub-structures ranged from 0.6 mm to 2.3 mm (systematic) and from 1.0 mm to 1.7 mm (random). Required PTV margins for the sub-regions ranged from 4.5 mm to 9.3 mm with no IG and from 2.3 mm to 6.8 mm with daily IG. CONCLUSION: Anatomical changes over the treatment course require frequent IG to achieve accurate dose delivery using highly conformal radiotherapy techniques. The current study shows that considerable local RSE may remain even with daily IGRT. The comprehension of local RSEs in HNC radiotherapy is important when designating PTV margins as well as tolerance levels for couch correction and plan adaption.

Localization accuracy and immobilization effectiveness of a stereotactic body frame for a variety of treatment sites.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the pretreatment setup errors and intrafraction motion using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy patients immobilized and localized with a stereotactic body frame for a variety of treatment sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Localization errors were recorded for patients receiving SBRT for 141 lung, 29 liver, 48 prostate, and 45 spine tumors representing 1005 total localization sessions. All patients were treated in a stereotactic body frame with a large custom-molded vacuum pillow. Patients were first localized to the frame using tattoos placed during simulation. Subsequently, the frame was aligned to the room lasers according to the stereotactic coordinates determined from the treatment plan. Every patient received a pretreatment and an intrafraction CBCT. Abdominal compression was used for all liver patients and for approximately 40% of the lung patients to reduce tumor motion due to respiration. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation pretreatment setup errors from all localizations were -2.44 ± 3.85, 1.31 ± 5.84, and 0.11 ± 3.76 mm in the anteroposterior, superoinferior, and lateral directions, respectively. The mean pretreatment localization results among all treatment sites were not significantly different (F test, P<.05). For all treatment sites, the mean ± standard deviation intrafraction shifts were 0.33 ± 1.34, 0.15 ± 1.45, and -0.02 ± 1.17 mm in the anteroposterior, superoinferior, and lateral directions, respectively. The mean unidimensional intrafraction shifts were statistically different for several of the comparisons (P<.05) as assessed by the Tukey-Kramer test. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the varied tumor locations, the pretreatment mean localization errors for all sites were found to be consistent among the treatment sites and not significantly different, indicating that the body frame is a suitable immobilization and localization device for a variety of tumor sites. Our pretreatment localization errors and intrafraction shifts compare favorably with those reported in other studies using different types of immobilization devices.

Evaluation of the sensitivity of two 3D diode array dosimetry systems to setup error for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensitivities of 3D diode arrays to setup error for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Translational setup errors of ± 1, ± 2, and ± 3 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions and rotational setup errors of ± 1° and ± 2° in the pitch, roll, and yaw directions were set up in two phantom systems, ArcCHECK and Delta4, with VMAT plans for 11 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) followed by automatic correction using a HexaPOD 6D treatment couch ensured the position accuracy. Dose distributions of the two phantoms were compared in order to evaluate the agreement between calculated and measured values by using γ analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria. To determine the impact on setup error for VMAT QA, we evaluated the sensitivity of results acquired by both 3D diode array systems to setup errors in translation and rotation. For the VMAT QA of all patients, the pass rate with the 3%/3 mm criteria exceeded 95% using either phantom. For setup errors of 3 mm and 2°, respectively, the pass rates with the 3%/3mm criteria decreased by a maximum of 14.0% and 23.5% using ArcCHECK, and 14.4% and 5.0% using Delta4. Both systems are sensitive to setup error, and do not have mechanisms to account for setup errors in the software. The sensitivity of both VMAT QA systems was strongly dependent on the patient-specific plan. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK to the rotational error was higher than that of Delta4. In order to achieve less than 3% mean pass rate reduction of VMAT plan QA with the 3%/3 mm criteria, a setup accuracy of 2 mm/1° and 2 mm/2° is required for ArcCheck and Delta4 devices, respectively. The cumulative effect of the combined 2 mm translational and 1° rotational errors caused 3.8% and 2.4% mean pass rates reduction with 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively, for ArcCHECK and Delta4 systems. For QA of VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) using the ArcCHECK system, the setup should be more accurate.

Cone-beam computed tomography-guided positioning of laryngeal cancer patients with large interfraction time trends in setup and nonrigid anatomy variations.

PURPOSE: To investigate interfraction setup variations of the primary tumor, elective nodes, and vertebrae in laryngeal cancer patients and to validate protocols for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided correction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 30 patients, CBCT-measured displacements in fractionated treatments were used to investigate population setup errors and to simulate residual setup errors for the no action level (NAL) offline protocol, the extended NAL (eNAL) protocol, and daily CBCT acquisition with online analysis and repositioning. RESULTS: Without corrections, 12 of 26 patients treated with radical radiation therapy would have experienced a gradual change (time trend) in primary tumor setup ≥4 mm in the craniocaudal (CC) direction during the fractionated treatment (11/12 in caudal direction, maximum 11 mm). Due to these trends, correction of primary tumor displacements with NAL resulted in large residual CC errors (required margin 6.7 mm). With the weekly correction vector adjustments in eNAL, the trends could be largely compensated (CC margin 3.5 mm). Correlation between movements of the primary and nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs) in the CC direction was poor (r(2)=0.15). Therefore, even with online setup corrections of the primary CTV, the required CC margin for the nodal CTV was as large as 6.8 mm. Also for the vertebrae, large time trends were observed for some patients. Because of poor CC correlation (r(2)=0.19) between displacements of the primary CTV and the vertebrae, even with daily online repositioning of the vertebrae, the required CC margin around the primary CTV was 6.9 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal cancer patients showed substantial interfraction setup variations, including large time trends, and poor CC correlation between primary tumor displacements and motion of the nodes and vertebrae (internal tumor motion). These trends and nonrigid anatomy variations have to be considered in the choice of setup verification protocol and planning target volume margins. eNAL could largely compensate time trends with minor prolongation of fraction time.

[Risk analysis in radiation therapy: state of the art]. / Analyse des risques en radiothérapie: état des lieux.

Five radiotherapy accidents, from which two serial, occurred in France from 2003 to 2007, led the authorities to establish a roadmap for securing radiotherapy. By analogy with industrial processes, a technical decision form the French Nuclear Safety Authority in 2008 requires radiotherapy professionals to conduct analyzes of risks to patients. The process of risk analysis had been tested in three pilot centers, before the occurrence of accidents, with the creation of cells feedback. The regulation now requires all radiotherapy services to have similar structures to collect precursor events, incidents and accidents, to perform analyzes following rigorous methods and to initiate corrective actions. At the same time, it is also required to conduct analyzes a priori, less intuitive, and usually require the help of a quality engineer, with the aim of reducing risk. The progressive implementation of these devices is part of an overall policy to improve the quality of radiotherapy. Since 2007, no radiotherapy accident was reported.