The spine and carina as a surrogate for target registration in cone-beam CT imaging verification in locally advanced lung cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of volumetric lung image guidance using the spine or carina as a surrogate to target for image registration, as the best approach is not established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography images from the 1st, 10th, 15th, and 20th fraction in 40 lung cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy were retrospectively registered to planning CT, using three approaches. The spine and carina alignment set-up deviations from a reference (tumour/lymph nodes) registration in the lateral (LAT), longitudinal (LONG) and vertical (VRT) directions were analysed and compared. Tumour location and nodal stage influence on registration accuracy were explored. RESULTS: The spine and carina mean set-up deviation from reference were largest in the LONG, with the best match in the VRT and LAT, respectively. Both strategies were more accurate in central tumours, with the carina being more precise in 50% LAT and 66% LONG mean deviations. For all measurements in all patients a carina vs. spine registration comparison showed improved carina accuracy in LAT and LONG. In comparative subgroup analysis the carina was superior compared to spine in LAT and LONG in centrally located tumours, N2 and N3. Both strategies were comparable for peripheral tumours and N0. CONCLUSIONS: Carina registration shows greater accuracy compared to spine in the LAT and LONG directions and is superior in central tumours, N2 and N3. The spine and carina surrogates are equally accurate for peripheral tumours and N0. We propose the carina as a surrogate to target for CBCT image registration in locally advanced lung cancer.

Comparison of treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup in intracranial MRI radiotherapy simulation.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the quality of images resulting from magnetic resonance imaging of patients who underwent intracranial MRI simulation using two different setups (treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup). Due to a larger number of channels and lack of mask immobilization in the standard diagnostic setup, we would like to evaluate whether this is an appropriate technique for MRI treatment planning. METHODS: In total, 70 patients who underwent MR imaging of the brain at 1.5T were included in the study (48 for 6­channel flex coil, 22 for 24-channel HNU face bill coil). Contrast-enhanced 3D T1w and T2 FLAIR images were acquired. Images were subjectively compared for artifact appearance and general image quality by three radiographers. Objective comparison of contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio was also performed. RESULTS: FLAIR and contrast-enhanced 3D T1w images showed various artifacts, such as susceptibility and movement artifacts. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the evaluation of movement artifacts between two coils and two different immobilization methods. There were also no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the 6­channel flex coil and 24-channel HNU face bill coil regarding qualitative general image quality and objective measures. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences between the occurrence of movement artifacts, overall image quality, and objective image quality in treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup. Based on this result, we can conclude that a standard diagnostic setup is also applicable in intracranial MRI treatment planning with no loss to image quality. Registration of the imaging plans was not performed in this study; therefore, it might still be necessary to perform measurements of tumor delineation matching and geometrical accuracy acceptance in our institution.

Establishment of national diagnostic reference levels for radiotherapy computed tomography simulation procedures in Slovenia.

PURPOSE: To propose national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for radiotherapy (RT) computed tomography (CT) localization purposes, compare both CT units used in the largest RT department in the country and to compare gathered results with other published DRLs in order to discover any need of optimization. METHODS: In total, 1631 patient data (time spend of 4 months) regarding sex, examination type, total dose-length product (DLP) and CTDIvol was collated on two CT units. Those simulation procedures account for more than 80 % of all simulation procedures performed nationwide. Then, total DLP and CTDIvol was calculated and mean, median and 3rd quartile for both units together were presented to determine national DRLs for simulation procedures. The same data was later compared between both units to discover any potential need for optimization. RESULTS: 3rd quartile values of DLP for abdomen, breast, chest, head, head and neck, pelvis and spine were 1116.2, 606.6, 832.4, 1942.4, 969.2, 677.1 and 1042.4 mGy∙cm, respectively. 3rd quartile CTDIvol values for the same sequence of procedures were 18.7, 13.3, 19.2, 76.9, 22.6, 17.9 and 22.2 mGy, respectively. Among the two units, the mentioned dose values were on average significantly higher on one CT unit than on the other unit. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing collected dose values with other studies, RT CT DRLs showed that radiation doses from our institution were similar or even lower. Some variations were found between both CT units in certain protocols, so exposure parameters should be reviewed and optimized.