PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of surface imaging for monitoring intrafraction motion purposes in frameless stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung cancer by comparison with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients (18 males, 18 females) were included. During each fraction, three CBCT scans were acquired; CBCT1: before treatment, CBCT2: after correction for tumor misalignment, and CBCT3: after treatment. Intrafraction motion was derived by registering CBCT2 and CBCT3 to the mid-ventilation planning CT scan. Surfaces were captured concurrently with CBCT acquisitions. Retrospectively, for each set of surfaces, an average surface was created: Surface1, Surface2, and Surface3. Subsequently, Surface3 was registered to Surface2 to assess intrafraction motion. For the differences between CBCT- and surface-imaging-derived 3D intrafraction motions, group mean, systematic error, random error and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. RESULTS: Group mean, systematic and random errors were smaller for females than for males: 0.4 vs. 1.3, 1.3 vs. 3.1, and 1.7 vs. 3.3 mm respectively. For female patients deviations between CBCT-tumor- and 3D-surface-imaging-derived intrafraction motions were between -3.3 and 4.3 mm (95% LOA). For male patients these were substantially larger: -5.9-9.5mm. CONCLUSION: Surface imaging is a promising technology for monitoring intrafraction motion purposes in SBRT for female patients.
PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of surface imaging for monitoring intrafraction motion purposes in frameless stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung cancer by comparison with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients (18 males, 18 females) were included. During each fraction, three CBCT scans were acquired; CBCT1: before treatment, CBCT2: after correction for tumor misalignment, and CBCT3: after treatment. Intrafraction motion was derived by registering CBCT2 and CBCT3 to the mid-ventilation planning CT scan. Surfaces were captured concurrently with CBCT acquisitions. Retrospectively, for each set of surfaces, an average surface was created: Surface1, Surface2, and Surface3. Subsequently, Surface3 was registered to Surface2 to assess intrafraction motion. For the differences between CBCT- and surface-imaging-derived 3D intrafraction motions, group mean, systematic error, random error and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. RESULTS: Group mean, systematic and random errors were smaller for females than for males: 0.4 vs. 1.3, 1.3 vs. 3.1, and 1.7 vs. 3.3 mm respectively. For female patients deviations between CBCT-tumor- and 3D-surface-imaging-derived intrafraction motions were between -3.3 and 4.3 mm (95% LOA). For male patients these were substantially larger: -5.9-9.5mm. CONCLUSION: Surface imaging is a promising technology for monitoring intrafraction motion purposes in SBRT for female patients.
Authors: Fabian Weykamp; Philipp Hoegen; Sebastian Klüter; C Katharina Spindeldreier; Laila König; Katharina Seidensaal; Sebastian Regnery; Jakob Liermann; Carolin Rippke; Stefan A Koerber; Carolin Buchele; Jürgen Debus; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Constantin Dreher; Markus Oechsner; Michael Mayinger; Stefanie Beierl; Marciana-Nona Duma; Stephanie E Combs; Daniel Habermehl Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: P Freislederer; M Kügele; M Öllers; A Swinnen; T-O Sauer; C Bert; D Giantsoudi; S Corradini; V Batista Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: John H Heinzerling; Carnell J Hampton; Myra Robinson; Megan Bright; Benjamin J Moeller; Justin Ruiz; Roshan Prabhu; Stuart H Burri; Ryan D Foster Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 2.102