Stefan Gerlach1, Ivo Kuhlemann2, Floris Ernst2, Christoph Fürweger3, Alexander Schlaefer1. 1. 1 Institute of Medical Technology, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany. 2. 2 Institute for Robotics and Cognitive Systems, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. 3. 3 Europäisches Cyberknife Zentrum München-Großhadern, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ultrasound provides good image quality, fast volumetric imaging and is established for abdominal image guidance. Robotic transducer placement may facilitate intrafractional motion compensation in radiation therapy. We consider integration with the CyberKnife and study whether the kinematic redundancy of a seven-degrees-of-freedom robot allows for acceptable plan quality for prostate treatments. METHODS: Reference treatment plans were generated for 10 prostate cancer cases previously treated with the CyberKnife. Considering transducer and prostate motion by different safety margins, 10 different robot poses, and 3 different elbow configurations, we removed all beams colliding with robot or transducer. For each combination, plans were generated using the same strict dose constraints and the objective to maximize the target coverage. Additionally, plans for the union of all unblocked beams were generated. RESULTS: In 9 cases the planning target coverage with the ultrasound robot was within 1.1 percentage points of the reference coverage. It was 1.7 percentage points for one large prostate. For one preferable robot position, kinematic redundancy decreased the average number of blocked beam directions from 23.1 to 14.5. CONCLUSION: The impact of beam blocking can largely be offset by treatment planning and using a kinematically redundant robot. Plan quality can be maintained by carefully choosing the ultrasound robot position and pose. For smaller planning target volumes the difference in coverage is negligible for safety margins of up to 35 mm. Advances in knowledge: Integrating a robot for online intrafractional image guidance based on ultrasound can be realized while maintaining acceptable plan quality for prostate cancer treatments with the CyberKnife.
OBJECTIVE: Ultrasound provides good image quality, fast volumetric imaging and is established for abdominal image guidance. Robotic transducer placement may facilitate intrafractional motion compensation in radiation therapy. We consider integration with the CyberKnife and study whether the kinematic redundancy of a seven-degrees-of-freedom robot allows for acceptable plan quality for prostate treatments. METHODS: Reference treatment plans were generated for 10 prostate cancer cases previously treated with the CyberKnife. Considering transducer and prostate motion by different safety margins, 10 different robot poses, and 3 different elbow configurations, we removed all beams colliding with robot or transducer. For each combination, plans were generated using the same strict dose constraints and the objective to maximize the target coverage. Additionally, plans for the union of all unblocked beams were generated. RESULTS: In 9 cases the planning target coverage with the ultrasound robot was within 1.1 percentage points of the reference coverage. It was 1.7 percentage points for one large prostate. For one preferable robot position, kinematic redundancy decreased the average number of blocked beam directions from 23.1 to 14.5. CONCLUSION: The impact of beam blocking can largely be offset by treatment planning and using a kinematically redundant robot. Plan quality can be maintained by carefully choosing the ultrasound robot position and pose. For smaller planning target volumes the difference in coverage is negligible for safety margins of up to 35 mm. Advances in knowledge: Integrating a robot for online intrafractional image guidance based on ultrasound can be realized while maintaining acceptable plan quality for prostate cancer treatments with the CyberKnife.
Authors: Jan J W Lagendijk; Bas W Raaymakers; Alexander J E Raaijmakers; Johan Overweg; Kevin J Brown; Ellen M Kerkhof; Richard W van der Put; Björn Hårdemark; Marco van Vulpen; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: D Michael Lovelock; Alessandra P Messineo; Brett W Cox; Marisa A Kollmeier; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johanna Sprenger; Marcel Bengs; Stefan Gerlach; Maximilian Neidhardt; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.421