Jason C Ye1, Muhammad M Qureshi1, Pauline Clancy1, Lauren N Dise1, John Willins1, Ariel E Hirsch1. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the interfraction setup error in patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy using fiducial markers and on-board imaging. METHODS: Patients (n=53) were aligned to the treatment isocenter by laser followed by orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) radiographs to visualize bony anatomy and implanted fiducial markers. The magnitude and direction of couch shifts for isocenter correction required was determined by image registration for bony anatomy and fiducial markers. Twice weekly, 25 of the 53 patients also underwent conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) to measure any residual error in patient positioning. Based on individual coordinate shifts from CBCT, a net three-dimensional (3D) residual shift magnitude vector R was calculated. RESULTS: The average couch shifts were 0.26 and 0.40 cm in inferior direction and 0.25 and 0.33 cm in superior direction for alignments made with bony anatomy and fiducial markers, respectively (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences noted in the vertical or lateral planes between the two image registration methods. In subset of 25 patients, no residual shift from fiducial plain film set up was required with CBCT matching in 66.5%, 52.4% and 57.9% of fractions for longitudinal, vertical and lateral planes, respectively, with majority (79%) of patients having a net residual 3D shifts of <0.3 cm. The use of CBCT increased average treatment time by approximately 6 min compared to kV radiographs alone. CONCLUSIONS: The residual setup errors following daily kV image guided localization, as determined by CBCT, were small, which demonstrates high accuracy of kV localization when fiducial markers are present.
BACKGROUND: This study examined the interfraction setup error in patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy using fiducial markers and on-board imaging. METHODS:Patients (n=53) were aligned to the treatment isocenter by laser followed by orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) radiographs to visualize bony anatomy and implanted fiducial markers. The magnitude and direction of couch shifts for isocenter correction required was determined by image registration for bony anatomy and fiducial markers. Twice weekly, 25 of the 53 patients also underwent conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) to measure any residual error in patient positioning. Based on individual coordinate shifts from CBCT, a net three-dimensional (3D) residual shift magnitude vector R was calculated. RESULTS: The average couch shifts were 0.26 and 0.40 cm in inferior direction and 0.25 and 0.33 cm in superior direction for alignments made with bony anatomy and fiducial markers, respectively (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences noted in the vertical or lateral planes between the two image registration methods. In subset of 25 patients, no residual shift from fiducial plain film set up was required with CBCT matching in 66.5%, 52.4% and 57.9% of fractions for longitudinal, vertical and lateral planes, respectively, with majority (79%) of patients having a net residual 3D shifts of <0.3 cm. The use of CBCT increased average treatment time by approximately 6 min compared to kV radiographs alone. CONCLUSIONS: The residual setup errors following daily kV image guided localization, as determined by CBCT, were small, which demonstrates high accuracy of kV localization when fiducial markers are present.
Authors: David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lei Xing; Brian Thorndyke; Eduard Schreibmann; Yong Yang; Tian-Fang Li; Gwe-Ya Kim; Gary Luxton; Albert Koong Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Calvin Huntzinger; Peter Munro; Scott Johnson; Mika Miettinen; Corey Zankowski; Greg Ahlstrom; Reto Glettig; Reto Filliberti; Wolfgang Kaissl; Martin Kamber; Martin Amstutz; Lionel Bouchet; Dan Klebanov; Hassan Mostafavi; Richard Stark Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Helen A McNair; Vibeke N Hansen; Christopher C Parker; Phil M Evans; Andrew Norman; Elizabeth Miles; Emma J Harris; Louise Del-Acroix; Elizabeth Smith; Richard Keane; Vincent S Khoo; Alan C Thompson; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David Skarsgard; Pat Cadman; Ali El-Gayed; Robert Pearcey; Patricia Tai; Nadeem Pervez; Jackson Wu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Alexis N T J Kotte; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk; Marco van Vulpen; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joshua D Lawson; Tim Fox; Eric Elder; Adam Nowlan; Lawrence Davis; James Keller; Ian Crocker Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: F Guerreiro; N Burgos; A Dunlop; K Wong; I Petkar; C Nutting; K Harrington; S Bhide; K Newbold; D Dearnaley; N M deSouza; V A Morgan; J McClelland; S Nill; M J Cardoso; S Ourselin; U Oelfke; A C Knopf Journal: Phys Med Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Peter H Goff; Louis B Harrison; Eli Furhang; Evan Ng; Stephen Bhatia; Frieda Trichter; Ronald D Ennis Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-05-04