Technical Note: Rotational positional error corrected intrafraction set-up margins in stereotactic radiotherapy: A spatial assessment for coplanar and noncoplanar geometry.

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of the Varian PerfectPitch six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) robotic couch by using a Varian SRS QA phantom. Methods: The stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) phantom has five tungsten carbide BBs each with 7·5 mm in diameter arranged with the known geometry. Optical surface images and cone beam CT (CBCT) images of the phantom were taken at different pitch, roll and rotation angles. The pitch, roll, and rotation angles were varied from −3 to 3 degrees by inputs from the linac console. A total of 39 Vision RT images with different rotation angle combinations were collected, and the Vision RT software was used to determine the rotation angles and translational shifts from those images. Eight CBCT images at most allowed rotational angles were analysed by in-house software. The software took the coordinates of the voxel of the maximum CT number inside a 7·5-mm sphere surrounding one BB to be the measured position of this BB. Expected BB positions at different rotation angles were determined by multiplying measured BB positions at zero pitch and roll values by a rotation matrix. Applying the rotation matrix to 5 BB positions yielded 15 equations. A linear least square method was used for regression analysis to approximate the solutions of those equations. Results: Of the eight calculations from CBCT images, the maximum rotation angle differences (degree) were 0·10 for pitch, 0·15 for roll and 0·09 for yaw. The maximum translation differences were 0·3 mm in the left–right direction, 0·5 mm in the anterior–posterior direction and 0·4 mm in the superior–inferior direction. Conclusions: The uncertainties of the 6-DOF couch were examined with the methods of optical surface imaging and CBCT imaging of the SRS QA phantom. The rotational errors were less than 0·2 degree, and the isocentre shifts were less than 0·8 mm.

This study was carried out to assess whether the spatial resolution has an impact on the detection accuracy of proximal caries in flat panel CBCT (cone beam computerized tomography) images and if the detection accuracy can be improved by flat panel CBCT images scanned with high spatial resolution when compared to digital intraoral images. The CBCT test images of 45 non-restored human permanent teeth were respectively scanned with the ProMax 3D and the DCT Pro scanners at different resolutions. Digital images were obtained with a phosphor plate imaging system Digora Optime. Eight observers evaluated all the test images for carious lesion within the 90 proximal surfaces. With the histological examination serving as the reference standard, observer performances were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The areas under the ROC curves were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance. No significant differences were found among the CBCT images and between CBCT and digital images when only proximal enamel caries was detected (p = 0.989). With respect to the detection of proximal dentinal caries, significant difference was found between CBCT and digital images (p < 0.001) but not among CBCT images. The spatial resolution did not have an impact on the detection accuracy of proximal caries in flat panel CBCT images. The flat panel CBCT images scanned with high spatial resolution did not improve the detection accuracy of proximal enamel caries compared to digital intraoral images. CBCT images scanned with high spatial resolutions could not be used for proximal caries detection.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of actual rotational setup errors on dose distributions in intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) with different alternatives for treatment position selection. A total of 38 SRT fractions from 18 patients were retrospectively evaluated with rotational setup errors obtained from actual treatments. The planning computed tomography (CT) images were rotated according to online cone‐beam CT (CBCT) images and the dose distribution was recalculated to the rotated CT images using three different patient positionings derived from: 1) an automatic 6D match neglecting rotation correction (Auto6D); 2) an automatic 3D match (Auto3D); and 3) a manual 3D match from actual treatment (Treat3D). The mean conformity index (CI) was 0.92 for the original plans and 0.91 for the Auto6D plans. The mean CI decreased significantly (p<0.01) to 0.78 and 0.80 for the Auto3D and the Treat3D plans, respectively. The mean minimum dose of the planning target volume (PTVmin) was 91.9% of the prescribed dose for the original plans and 92.1% for the Auto6D plans, while for the Auto3D and the Treat3D plans PTVmin decreased significantly (p<0.01) to 78.9% and 80.2%, respectively. No significant differences were seen between the Auto6D and the original treatment plans in terms of the dose parameters. However, the Auto3D and the Treat3D plans were statistically significantly inferior (p<0.01) to the Auto6D and the original plans. In addition, a significant negative correlation (p<0.01,|r|>0.38) was found in the Auto3D and the Treat3D cases between the rotation error and CI, PTVmin or minimum dose of gross tumour volume. In SRT, a treatment plan of comparable quality to 6D rotation correction can be achieved by using 6D registration without a rotational correction in the selection of patient positioning. This was demonstrated for typical rotation errors seen in clinical practice.PACS number(s): 87.55, 87.57

This study uses a phantom to investigate the dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors for Single Isocenter Multiple Targets (SIMT) HyperArc plans. Additionally, it evaluates intra-fractional rotational setup errors in patients treated with Encompass immobilization system. The Varian HyperArc system (Varian Medical systems) was used to create plans targeting spherical PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15mm and with offsets of 1.3-5.3cm from the isocenter. Dosimetric parameters, including mean and maximum dose, D99% and D95% were evaluated for various rotational setup errors ranging from 0.5° to 2° for the PTVs and certain CTVs created within PTVs. These rotational errors were applied in an order and direction that resulted in the maximum displacement of targets. The rotation was applied both uniformly around all three axes and individually around each axis. Furthermore, to link the findings to actual treatment scenarios, the intra-fractional rotational setup errors were obtained for stereotactic cranial patients treated with the Encompass system using CBCT images acquired during treatments. The maximum displacement of 2.7mm was observed for targets located at 4.4 and 4.5cm from the isocenter with rotational setup errors of 2°. The dose reduction for D99% values corresponding to this displacement were about 50%, 40%, and 30% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15mm, respectively. Both D99% and D95% showed a consistent trend of dose reduction across various rotational errors and PTV volumes. While the maximum dose remained consistent for different targets with various rotational errors, the mean dose decreased by approximately 25%, 12%, and 6% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15cm, respectively, with rotational errors of 2°. In addition, by analyzing CBCT images, the absolute mean rotational setup errors obtained during treatment with Encompass for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.17°±0.13°, 0.11°±0.10°, and 0.12°±0.10° respectively. This data, combined with existing studies, suggest that a 0.5° rotational setup error is a safe choice to consider for calculating additional PTV margin to ensure adequate CTV coverage. Therefore, the assessment of maximum displacement and dosimetric parameters in this study, for a 0.5° rotational error, highlights the need for an additional 0.7mm PTV margin for targets positioned at distances of 4.4cm or greater from the isocenter. For SIMT Plans, a 0.5° rotational setup error is recommended as a basis for calculating additional PTV margins to ensure adequate CTV coverage when using the Encompass system.

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.

Purpose: The purpose is to evaluate the rotational setup errors in SBRTtreatment for lungtumors using cone beam CT(CBCT), to investigate the dosimetric impact of rotational setup error, and to determine if translational shifts can compensate the rotation. Methods: Online setup CBCT (n=38) from ten lung patients treated with SBRT were re‐evaluated offline by matching with reference CT using adjustment to 3 rotational angles (pitch, roll and yaw). To investigate the dosimetric impact, planning CTimages were rotated using the actual magnitudes obtained from offline match and the dosimetric changes were quantified by comparing the recalculated dose distribution to the original plans. Translational corrections were simulated by manual translational registration of the target volumes on the rotated images to the original CT. The correction efficacy was evaluated by comparing the recalculated plans to the original treatment plan. Results: The systematic and random setup errors in rotational angles were −0.01±0.50, − 0.57±1.08, −0.11±0.42 degrees for pitch, roll and yaw, respectively. Out of 38 acquired CBCTimages, 57.9% had rotational error >1 degree in any axis, 15.7% had error >2 degree in any axis and only 5.3% had error >3 degree in any axis of rotation. Our previous simulation study using various degrees of rotations showed that target coverage reduced significantly for rotation greater than 3 degrees. Plans recalculated using actual patient roll motions obtained from offline match showed similar reduction in tumor coverage. Translational correction resulted in a fairly good recovery of target coverage except it may result in increased dose to organs at risk (OAR). Conclusions: Rotational setup errors for lungSBRT are relatively small in magnitude and not likely to affect GTV coverage significantly. Translational corrections can be optimized to compensate for rotational setup errors; however, caution needs to be paid regarding dose increase to OAR.

Objectives: Accurate setup margin (SM) estimation is critical in radiotherapy to ensure target coverage while sparing organs at risk. Traditional methods like van Herk’s formalism assume that setup errors follow a normal or Gaussian distribution, which may not hold for small or skewed datasets and may result in under- or over-estimated SMs.This study evaluates an unconventional method based on the non-Gaussian percentile approach against the van Herk formalism for SM estimation across multiple tumor sites using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) setup data. Material and Methods: Eighty patients (20 per site: brain, head and neck, thorax, pelvis) treated with external beam radiotherapy were analyzed retrospectively. Setup errors were measured via EPID-based imaging. Conventional SMs were calculated using van Herk’s method (2.5Σ + 0.7σ), while the unconventional method derived SMs directly from the setup-error histogram, i.e., the 5th–95th percentiles (90% range of setup errors, RSE) of per-patient mean daily shifts.Normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk(S-W) tests, skewness/kurtosis analysis, and Q-Q plots. Methods were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p&lt;0.05) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d)reported without claiming clinical significance. Results: Unconventional SMs were consistently larger than conventional SMs (overall medians: 4.21 vs 2.71 mm; p&lt;0.05), with the largest differences in thorax (Δ up to 3.63 mm) and pelvis (Δ up to 2.17 mm). Several datasets were non-normal by S–W and/or skewness/kurtosis. As a practical benchmark, margin differences ≥2 mm were considered clinically meaningful for interpretation, given typical planning target volume (PTV) rounding and published cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-era margins. Conclusion: In non-Gaussian or limited-data scenarios, the percentile-based method yields more conservative SMs than van Herk. Given EPID’s inability to capture organ motion/rotation, validation with CBCT or 4D imaging is recommended before clinical implementation.

Background: We aim to present our linear accelerator-based workflow for pancreatic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in order to address the following issues: intrafractional organ motion management, Cone Beam CT (CBCT) image quality, residual errors with dosimetric consequences, treatment time, and clinical results.Methods: Between 2016 and 2021, 14 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with induction chemotherapy and SABR using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Internal target volume (ITV) concept (5), phase-gated (4), or breath hold (5) techniques were used. Treatment was verified by CBCT before and after irradiation, while tumor motion was monitored and controlled by kV triggered imaging and beam hold using peritumoral surgical clips. Beam interruptions and treatment time were recorded. The CBCT image quality was scored and supplemented by an agreement analysis (Krippendorff’s-α) of breath-hold CBCT images to determine the position of OARs relative to the planning risk volumes (PRV). Residual errors and their dosimetry impact were also calculated. Progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier analysis with acute and late toxicity reporting (CTCAEv4).Results: On average, beams were interrupted once (range: 0–3) per treatment session on triggered imaging. The total median treatment time was 16.7 ± 10.8 min, significantly less for breath-hold vs. phase-gated sessions (18.8 ± 6.2 vs. 26.5 ± 13.4, p < 0.001). The best image quality was achieved by breath hold CBCT. The Krippendorff’s-α test showed a strong agreement among five radiation therapists (mean K-α value: 0.8 (97.5%). The mean residual errors were <0.2 cm in each direction resulting in an average difference of <2% in dosimetry for OAR and target volume. Two patients received offline adaptation. The median OS/PFS after induction chemotherapy and SABR was 20/12 months and 15/8 months. No Gr. ≥2 acute/late RT-related toxicity was noted.Conclusion: Linear accelerator based pancreatic SABR with the combination of CBCT and triggered imaging + beam hold is feasible. Peritumoral fiducials improve utility while breath-hold CBCT provides the best image quality at a reasonable treatment time with offline adaptation possibilities. In well-selected cases, it can be an effective alternative in clinics where CBCT/MRI-guided online adaptive workflow is not available.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Image Guidance for Lung Cancer Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Cone Beam CT (CBCT) kilovoltage imaging devices are increasingly available for daily imaging in radiotherapy departments. Flat‐panel based CBCT scanners present a distinctive set of artifacts due mostly to increased scatter, longer data acquisition time and reduced detector quantum efficiency as compared to helical Fan Beam CT (FBCT) systems. Our purpose is to characterize image quality from FBCT and CBCT scanners based on noise, contrast and dose, using FBCT as a benchmark. Method and Materials: we acquired phantom and clinical patient images with a CBCT Varian On‐Board Imager as well as with a FBCT Picker PQ5000 single‐row helical scanner. The CBCT scanner was equipped with antiscatter grid and bowtie filter. By comparing CBCT and FBCT images of a high contrast resolution insert, the CBCT reconstruction voxel size and filter were adjusted until the spatial resolution of the FBCT and CBCT images was approximately matched. Dose was measured with standard CTDI and Farmer chambers. Noise, contrast and SNR were evaluated and compared. Results: CBCT images of both phantom and patient were relatively free of streaking and cupping artifacts, indicating that the grid had successfully attenuated most of the scatter. Low contrast detectability threshold is similar for the two modalities, when CBCT dose is about twice as large as FBCT. Noise and non‐uniformities are more prevalent in patient CBCT images, but pelvic soft tissue structures are well discernible. For patient and phantom images Dose×SNR2 is about 4 times lower for FBCT than in CBCT, which is about 1.5–2 times larger than expected, given the measured grid transmission and detector quantum efficiency. Conclusion: In this study, resolution‐matched CBCT and FBCT images could exhibit similar SNRs and contrast‐to‐noise ratios through a combination of increased imaging dose and reduced spatial resolution.

BackgroundDry 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.MethodsTranslational 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.ResultsDespite 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.ConclusionWhen 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.

New technique and application of truncated CBCT processing in adaptive radiotherapy for breast cancer

The aim of this study is to evaluate anatomic lung tumor changes and dosimetric consequences utilizing the deformable daily kilovolt (KV) cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) image registration. Five patients diagnosed with NSCLC were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) and 10 daily KV CBCT image sets were acquired for each patient. Each CBCT image and plan CT were imported into the deformable image registration (DIR) system. The plan CT image was deformed by the DIR system and a new contour on CBCT was obtained by using the auto-contouring function of the DIR. These contours were individually marked as CBCT f1, CBCT f2,..., and CBCT f10, and imported into a treatment planning system (TPS). The daily CBCT plan was individually generated with the same planning criteria based on new contours. These plans were individually marked as CBCTp1, CBCTp2,..., and CBCTp10, followed by generating a dose accumulation plan (DA plan) in original pCT image contour sets by adding all CBCT plans using Varian Eclipse TPS. The maximum, minimum and mean doses to the plan target volume (PTV) in the 5 DA plans were the same with the CT plans. However, the volume of radiation 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 Gy of the total lungs in DA plans were less than those of the CT plans. The maximum dose of the spinal cord in the DA plans were average 27.96% less than the CT plans. The mean dose for the left, right, and total lungs in the DA plans were reduced by 13.80%, 23.65%, and 12.96%, respectively. The adaptive 3D CRT based on the deformable registration can reduce the dose to the lung and the spinal cord with the same PTV dose coverage. Moreover, it provides a method for further adaptive radiotherapy exploration.

BackgroundThe emergence of robotic Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging systems in trauma departments has enabled 3D anatomical assessment of musculoskeletal injuries, supplementing conventional 2D fluoroscopic imaging for examination, diagnosis, and treatment planning. To date, the primary focus has been on trauma sites in the extremities.PurposeTo determine if CBCT images can be used during the treatment planning process in spinal instrumentation and laminectomy procedures, allowing accurate 3D‐printed pedicle screw and laminectomy drill guides to be generated for the cervical and thoracic spine.MethodsThe accuracy of drill guides generated from CBCT images was assessed using animal cadavers (ovine and porcine). Preoperative scans were acquired using a robotic CBCT C‐arm system, the Siemens ARTIS pheno (Siemens Healthcare, GmbH, Germany). The CBCT images were imported into 3D‐Slicer version 4.10.2 (www.slicer.org) where vertebral models and specific guides were developed and subsequently 3D‐printed. In the ovine cadaver, 11 pedicle screw guides from the T1–T5 and T7–T12 vertebra and six laminectomy guides from the C2–C7 vertebra were planned and printed. In the porcine cadaver, nine pedicle screw guides from the C3–T4 vertebra were planned and printed. For the pedicle screw guides, accuracy was assessed by three observers according to pedicle breach via the Gertzbein–Robbins grading system as well as measured mean axial and sagittal screw error via postoperative CBCT and CT scans. For the laminectomies, the guides were designed to leave 1 mm of lamina. The average thickness of the lamina at the mid‐point was used to assess the accuracy of the guides, measured via postoperative CBCT and CT scans from three observers. For all measurements, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine observer reliability.ResultsCompared with the planned screw angles for both the ovine and porcine procedures (n = 32), the mean axial and sagittal screw error measured on the postoperative CBCT scans from three observers were 3.9 ± 1.9° and 1.8 ± 0.8°, respectively. The ICC among the observes was 0.855 and 0.849 for the axial and sagittal measurements, respectively, indicating good reliability. In the ovine cadaver, directly comparing the measured axial and sagittal screw angle of the visible screws (n = 14) in the postoperative CBCT and conventional CT scans from three observers revealed an average difference 1.9 ± 1.0° in axial angle and 1.8 ± 1.0° in the sagittal angle. The average thickness of the lamina at the middle of each vertebra, as measured on‐screen in the postoperative CBCT scans by three observes was 1.6 ± 0.2 mm. The ICC among observers was 0.693, indicating moderate reliability. No lamina breaches were observed in the postoperative images.ConclusionHere, CBCT images have been used to generate accurate 3D‐printed pedicle screw and laminectomy drill guides for use in the cervical and thoracic spine. The results demonstrate sufficient precision compared with those previously reported, generated from standard preoperative CT and MRI scans, potentially expanding the treatment planning capabilities of robotic CBCT imaging systems in trauma departments and operating rooms.

Aim: To compare the implant size which was determined by different observers using panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with inserted implant size.Material and Methods: 194 PAN and CBCT images which belong to 194 patients who were planned to undergone single-tooth implant therapy were evaluated. 50 anterior regions, 42 premolar regions and 92 molar regions were assessed. These sites were used for planning of dental implant insertion. Images were analyzed by observers with different education and clinic experience backgrounds: one periodontist (observer 1), one oral and maxillofacial radiologist (observer 2), and one general practitioner (observer 3). Panoramic images and cross-sectional CBCT images of each patient were examined; differences in length and width of the implant-to-be from the two imaging systems were analyzed and compared to inserted implant size.Results: Observer 2 recorded the largest implant width whereas observer 3 recorded narrower implants in PAN. Observer 3 recorded shortest implants than did the other two observers in CBCT and observer 2 recorded narrower implants in CBCT. The CBCT measurements allowed a wider implant in the premolar and molar regions. No significant difference was observed between CBCT and PAN in planning the implant length. The inserted implant size was smaller than the measurements made in CBCT.Conclusion: The results show that; different observers present different values in determining implant length and width. The inserted implant size and the dimensions measured on CBCT and PAN images were different.