Ling Zhuang1, Di Yan2, Jian Liang2, Dan Ionascu2, Victor Mangona2, Kai Yang2, Jun Zhou2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R, Detroit, Michigan 48201. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, 3601 West Thirteen Mile Road, Royal Oak, Michigan 48073.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of three target localization methods for image guided motion management in lung cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: Three online image localization methods, including (1) 2D method based on 2D cone beam (CB) projection images, (2) 3D method using 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging, and (3) 4D method using 4D CBCT imaging, have been evaluated using a moving phantom controlled by (a) 1D theoretical breathing motion curves and (b) 3D target motion patterns obtained from daily treatment of 3 lung cancer patients. While all methods are able to provide target mean position (MP), the 2D and 4D methods can also provide target motion standard deviation (SD) and excursion (EX). For each method, the detected MP/SD/EX values are compared to the analytically calculated actual values to calculate the errors. The MP errors are compared among three methods and the SD/EX errors are compared between the 2D and 4D methods. In the theoretical motion study (a), the dependency of MP/SD/EX error on EX is investigated with EX varying from 2.0 cm to 3.0 cm with an increment step of 0.2 cm. In the patient motion study (b), the dependency of MP error on target sizes (2.0 cm and 3.0 cm), motion patterns (four motions per patient) and EX variations is investigated using multivariant linear regression analysis. RESULTS: In the theoretical motion study (a), the MP detection errors are -0.2 ± 0.2, -1.5 ± 1.1, and -0.2 ± 0.2 mm for 2D, 3D, and 4D methods, respectively. Both the 2D and 4D methods could accurately detect motion pattern EX (error < 1.2 mm) and SD (error < 1.0 mm). In the patient motion study (b), MP detection error vector (mm) with the 2D method (0.7 ± 0.4) is found to be significantly less than with the 3D method (1.7 ± 0.8,p < 0.001) and the 4D method (1.4 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) using paired t-test. However, no significant difference is found between the 4D method and the 3D method. Based on multivariant linear regression analysis, the variances of MP error in SI direction explained by target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations are 9% with the 2D method, 74.4% with the 3D method, and 27% with the 4D method. The EX/SD detection errors are both < 1.0 mm for the 2D method and < 2.0 mm for the 4D method. CONCLUSIONS: The 2D method provides the most accurate MP detection regardless of the motion pattern variations, while its performance is limited by the accuracy of target identification in the projection images. The 3D method causes the largest error in MP determination, and its accuracy significantly depends on target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations. The 4D method provides moderate MP detection results, while its accuracy relies on a regular motion pattern. In addition, the 2D and 4D methods both provide accurate measurement of the motion SD/EX, providing extra information for motion management.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of three target localization methods for image guided motion management in lung cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: Three online image localization methods, including (1) 2D method based on 2D cone beam (CB) projection images, (2) 3D method using 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging, and (3) 4D method using 4D CBCT imaging, have been evaluated using a moving phantom controlled by (a) 1D theoretical breathing motion curves and (b) 3D target motion patterns obtained from daily treatment of 3 lung cancerpatients. While all methods are able to provide target mean position (MP), the 2D and 4D methods can also provide target motion standard deviation (SD) and excursion (EX). For each method, the detected MP/SD/EX values are compared to the analytically calculated actual values to calculate the errors. The MP errors are compared among three methods and the SD/EX errors are compared between the 2D and 4D methods. In the theoretical motion study (a), the dependency of MP/SD/EX error on EX is investigated with EX varying from 2.0 cm to 3.0 cm with an increment step of 0.2 cm. In the patient motion study (b), the dependency of MP error on target sizes (2.0 cm and 3.0 cm), motion patterns (four motions per patient) and EX variations is investigated using multivariant linear regression analysis. RESULTS: In the theoretical motion study (a), the MP detection errors are -0.2 ± 0.2, -1.5 ± 1.1, and -0.2 ± 0.2 mm for 2D, 3D, and 4D methods, respectively. Both the 2D and 4D methods could accurately detect motion pattern EX (error < 1.2 mm) and SD (error < 1.0 mm). In the patient motion study (b), MP detection error vector (mm) with the 2D method (0.7 ± 0.4) is found to be significantly less than with the 3D method (1.7 ± 0.8,p < 0.001) and the 4D method (1.4 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) using paired t-test. However, no significant difference is found between the 4D method and the 3D method. Based on multivariant linear regression analysis, the variances of MP error in SI direction explained by target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations are 9% with the 2D method, 74.4% with the 3D method, and 27% with the 4D method. The EX/SD detection errors are both < 1.0 mm for the 2D method and < 2.0 mm for the 4D method. CONCLUSIONS: The 2D method provides the most accurate MP detection regardless of the motion pattern variations, while its performance is limited by the accuracy of target identification in the projection images. The 3D method causes the largest error in MP determination, and its accuracy significantly depends on target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations. The 4D method provides moderate MP detection results, while its accuracy relies on a regular motion pattern. In addition, the 2D and 4D methods both provide accurate measurement of the motion SD/EX, providing extra information for motion management.