Paul J Keall1, Doan Trang Nguyen2, Ricky O'Brien2, Pengpeng Zhang3, Laura Happersett3, Jenny Bertholet4, Per R Poulsen5. 1. ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: paul.keall@sydney.edu.au. 2. ACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review real-time 3-dimensional (3D) image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) on standard-equipped cancer radiation therapy systems, focusing on clinically implemented solutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three groups in 3 continents have clinically implemented novel real-time 3D IGRT solutions on standard-equipped linear accelerators. These technologies encompass kilovoltage, combined megavoltage-kilovoltage, and combined kilovoltage-optical imaging. The cancer sites treated span pelvic and abdominal tumors for which respiratory motion is present. For each method the 3D-measured motion during treatment is reported. After treatment, dose reconstruction was used to assess the treatment quality in the presence of motion with and without real-time 3D IGRT. The geometric accuracy was quantified through phantom experiments. A literature search was conducted to identify additional real-time 3D IGRT methods that could be clinically implemented in the near future. RESULTS: The real-time 3D IGRT methods were successfully clinically implemented and have been used to treat more than 200 patients. Systematic target position shifts were observed using all 3 methods. Dose reconstruction demonstrated that the delivered dose is closer to the planned dose with real-time 3D IGRT than without real-time 3D IGRT. In addition, compromised target dose coverage and variable normal tissue doses were found without real-time 3D IGRT. The geometric accuracy results with real-time 3D IGRT had a mean error of <0.5 mm and a standard deviation of <1.1 mm. Numerous additional articles exist that describe real-time 3D IGRT methods using standard-equipped radiation therapy systems that could also be clinically implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple clinical implementations of real-time 3D IGRT on standard-equipped cancer radiation therapy systems have been demonstrated. Many more approaches that could be implemented were identified. These solutions provide a pathway for the broader adoption of methods to make radiation therapy more accurate, impacting tumor and normal tissue dose, margins, and ultimately patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: To review real-time 3-dimensional (3D) image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) on standard-equipped cancer radiation therapy systems, focusing on clinically implemented solutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three groups in 3 continents have clinically implemented novel real-time 3D IGRT solutions on standard-equipped linear accelerators. These technologies encompass kilovoltage, combined megavoltage-kilovoltage, and combined kilovoltage-optical imaging. The cancer sites treated span pelvic and abdominal tumors for which respiratory motion is present. For each method the 3D-measured motion during treatment is reported. After treatment, dose reconstruction was used to assess the treatment quality in the presence of motion with and without real-time 3D IGRT. The geometric accuracy was quantified through phantom experiments. A literature search was conducted to identify additional real-time 3D IGRT methods that could be clinically implemented in the near future. RESULTS: The real-time 3D IGRT methods were successfully clinically implemented and have been used to treat more than 200 patients. Systematic target position shifts were observed using all 3 methods. Dose reconstruction demonstrated that the delivered dose is closer to the planned dose with real-time 3D IGRT than without real-time 3D IGRT. In addition, compromised target dose coverage and variable normal tissue doses were found without real-time 3D IGRT. The geometric accuracy results with real-time 3D IGRT had a mean error of <0.5 mm and a standard deviation of <1.1 mm. Numerous additional articles exist that describe real-time 3D IGRT methods using standard-equipped radiation therapy systems that could also be clinically implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple clinical implementations of real-time 3D IGRT on standard-equipped cancer radiation therapy systems have been demonstrated. Many more approaches that could be implemented were identified. These solutions provide a pathway for the broader adoption of methods to make radiation therapy more accurate, impacting tumor and normal tissue dose, margins, and ultimately patient outcomes.
Authors: Daniel R Simpson; Joshua D Lawson; Sameer K Nath; Brent S Rose; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Chun-Chien Shieh; Vincent Caillet; Michelle Dunbar; Paul J Keall; Jeremy T Booth; Nicholas Hardcastle; Carol Haddad; Thomas Eade; Ilana Feain Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Margie A Hunt; Mark Sonnick; Hai Pham; Rajesh Regmi; Jian-ping Xiong; Daniel Morf; Gig S Mageras; Michael Zelefsky; Pengpeng Zhang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Wei Zhao; Bin Han; Yong Yang; Mark Buyyounouski; Steven L Hancock; Hilary Bagshaw; Lei Xing Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: William S Ferris; Edward H Chao; Jennifer B Smilowitz; Randall J Kimple; John E Bayouth; Wesley S Culberson Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Vincent Vinh-Hung; Olena Gorobets; Andre Duerinkcx; Suresh Dutta; Eromosele Oboite; Joan Oboite; Ahmed Ali; Thandeka Mazibuko; Ulf Karlsson; Alexander Chi; David Lehrman; Omer Hashim Mohammed; Mohammad Mohammadianpanah; Gokoulakrichenane Loganadane; Natalia Migliore; Maria Vasileiou; Nam P Nguyen; Huan Giap Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 0.496