PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the effect of residual patient motion on dose distribution during intracranial image-guided robotic radiosurgery by analyzing the system log files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The dosimetric effect was analyzed according to the difference between the original and estimated dose distributions, including targeting error, caused by residual patient motion between two successive image acquisitions. One hundred twenty-eight treatments were analyzed. Forty-two patients were treated using the isocentric plan, and 86 patients were treated using the conformal (non-isocentric) plan. RESULTS: The median distance from the imaging center to the target was 55 mm, and the median interval between the acquisitions of sequential images was 79 s. The median translational residual patient motion was 0.1 mm for each axis, and the rotational residual patient motion was 0.1° for Δpitch and Δroll and 0.2° for Δyaw. The dose error for D 95 was within 1 % in more than 95 % of cases. The maximum dose error for D 10 to D 90 was within 2 %. None of the studied parameters, including the interval between the acquisitions of sequential images, was significantly related to the dosimetric effect. CONCLUSION: The effect of residual patient motion on dose distribution was minimal.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the effect of residual patient motion on dose distribution during intracranial image-guided robotic radiosurgery by analyzing the system log files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The dosimetric effect was analyzed according to the difference between the original and estimated dose distributions, including targeting error, caused by residual patient motion between two successive image acquisitions. One hundred twenty-eight treatments were analyzed. Forty-two patients were treated using the isocentric plan, and 86 patients were treated using the conformal (non-isocentric) plan. RESULTS: The median distance from the imaging center to the target was 55 mm, and the median interval between the acquisitions of sequential images was 79 s. The median translational residual patient motion was 0.1 mm for each axis, and the rotational residual patient motion was 0.1° for Δpitch and Δroll and 0.2° for Δyaw. The dose error for D 95 was within 1 % in more than 95 % of cases. The maximum dose error for D 10 to D 90 was within 2 %. None of the studied parameters, including the interval between the acquisitions of sequential images, was significantly related to the dosimetric effect. CONCLUSION: The effect of residual patient motion on dose distribution was minimal.
Authors: Martin J Murphy; Steven D Chang; Iris C Gibbs; Quynh-Thu Le; Jenny Hai; Daniel Kim; David P Martin; John R Adler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexander Muacevic; Michael Staehler; Christian Drexler; Berndt Wowra; Maximilian Reiser; Joerg-Christian Tonn Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2006-10
Authors: Christoph Fürweger; Christian Drexler; Markus Kufeld; Alexander Muacevic; Berndt Wowra; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cynthia Chuang; Arjun Sahgal; Letitia Lee; David Larson; Kim Huang; Paula Petti; Lynn Verhey; Lijun Ma Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.071
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