PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical targeting precision and assess patient movement data during fiducial-free, single-fraction spinal radiosurgery with the Cyberknife (CK). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Image-guided spine tracking accuracy was tested using two phantoms. Movement patterns (three translations, roll, pitch and yaw) were obtained from log files of 260 patient treatments (47 cervical, 89 thoracic, 90 lumbar, and 34 pelvic/sacral). For two treatments (average and maximum motion scenario), we added offsets to all beams according to recorded patient movements and recalculated the delivered dose distribution to simulate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion. RESULTS: Phantom spine position was registered with an accuracy of <0.2 mm for translational and <0.3° for rotational directions. Residual patient motion yielded mean targeting errors per beam of 0.28 ± 0.13 mm (X), 0.25 ± 0.15 mm (Y), 0.19 ± 0.11 mm (Z) and 0.40 ± 0.20° (roll), 0.20 ± 0.08° (pitch), and 0.19 ± 0.08° (yaw). Spine region had little influence on overall targeting error, which was <1 mm for more than 95% of treatments (median, 0.48 mm). In the maximum motion case, target coverage decreased by 1.7% (from 92.1% to 90.4%) for the 20-Gy prescription isodose. Spinal cord volume receiving more than 8 Gy increased slightly, from 2.41 to 2.46 cm(3). CONCLUSIONS: Submillimeter targeting precision was obtained for fiducial-free spinal radiosurgery despite patient motion. Patient motion has little effect on the delivered dose distribution when image-guided correction of beam aiming is employed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical targeting precision and assess patient movement data during fiducial-free, single-fraction spinal radiosurgery with the Cyberknife (CK). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Image-guided spine tracking accuracy was tested using two phantoms. Movement patterns (three translations, roll, pitch and yaw) were obtained from log files of 260 patient treatments (47 cervical, 89 thoracic, 90 lumbar, and 34 pelvic/sacral). For two treatments (average and maximum motion scenario), we added offsets to all beams according to recorded patient movements and recalculated the delivered dose distribution to simulate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion. RESULTS: Phantom spine position was registered with an accuracy of <0.2 mm for translational and <0.3° for rotational directions. Residual patient motion yielded mean targeting errors per beam of 0.28 ± 0.13 mm (X), 0.25 ± 0.15 mm (Y), 0.19 ± 0.11 mm (Z) and 0.40 ± 0.20° (roll), 0.20 ± 0.08° (pitch), and 0.19 ± 0.08° (yaw). Spine region had little influence on overall targeting error, which was <1 mm for more than 95% of treatments (median, 0.48 mm). In the maximum motion case, target coverage decreased by 1.7% (from 92.1% to 90.4%) for the 20-Gy prescription isodose. Spinal cord volume receiving more than 8 Gy increased slightly, from 2.41 to 2.46 cm(3). CONCLUSIONS: Submillimeter targeting precision was obtained for fiducial-free spinal radiosurgery despite patient motion. Patient motion has little effect on the delivered dose distribution when image-guided correction of beam aiming is employed.
Authors: Christos Moustakis; Mark K H Chan; Jinkoo Kim; Joakim Nilsson; Alanah Bergman; Tewfik J Bichay; Isabel Palazon Cano; Savino Cilla; Francesco Deodato; Raffaela Doro; Jürgen Dunst; Hans Theodor Eich; Pierre Fau; Ming Fong; Uwe Haverkamp; Simon Heinze; Guido Hildebrandt; Detlef Imhoff; Erik de Klerck; Janett Köhn; Ulrike Lambrecht; Britta Loutfi-Krauss; Fatemeh Ebrahimi; Laura Masi; Alan H Mayville; Ante Mestrovic; Maaike Milder; Alessio G Morganti; Dirk Rades; Ulla Ramm; Claus Rödel; Frank-Andre Siebert; Wilhelm den Toom; Lei Wang; Stefan Wurster; Achim Schweikard; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Ryu; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Christoph Fürweger; Christian Drexler; Markus Kufeld; Alexander Muacevic; Berndt Wowra Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Felix Ehret; Lucas Mose; Markus Kufeld; Christoph Fürweger; Paul Windisch; Alfred Haidenberger; Christian Schichor; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Alexander Muacevic Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Christoph Fürweger; Christian Drexler; Alexander Muacevic; Berndt Wowra; Erik C de Klerck; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102