PURPOSE: One of the biggest challenges in applying megavoltage (MV) treatment beam imaging for monitoring spine motion in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the small beam apertures in the images due to strong beam modulations in IMRT planning. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of a markerless motion tracking method in spine SBRT delivery using a novel enhanced synthetic treatment beam (ESTB) imaging technique. METHODS: Three clinical spine SBRT plans using 6XFFF beams and sliding window IMRT technique were transferred to a thorax phantom and delivered by a TrueBeam machine. Before delivery, the phantom was aligned to the plan isocenter using CBCT setup and verified with a second CBCT, and then, 2 mm shifts were introduced in both the craniocaudal (CC) and the left-right (LR) directions with the couch. During beam delivery, MV images were continuously taken with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and automatically grabbed by Varian iTools Capture software with a frame rate of 11.6 Hz. After preprocessing for scatter correction and beam intensity compensation, every 50 frames of MV images were combined to generate a series of ESTB images for each beam. The ESTB images were then registered to the projections of the verification CBCT at the matched beam angles to detect the 2 mm shifts. RESULTS: Compared to snapshot MV images, the ESTB images had significantly enlarged fields of view (FOVs) and improved image quality. Based on two-dimensional (2D) rigid registration, the ESTB image to CBCT projection matching showed submillimeter accuracy in detecting motion. Specifically, the root mean square errors in detecting the LR/CC shifts were 0.35/0.28, 0.32/0.35, 0.63/0.44, 0.55/0.51, and 0.69/0.42 mm at gantry angles 180, 160, 140, 120, and 100, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results in the phantom study suggest that ESTB images from a sliding window IMRT plan can be used to detect spine motion, with submillimeter precision in the 2D plane perpendicular to the beam.
PURPOSE: One of the biggest challenges in applying megavoltage (MV) treatment beam imaging for monitoring spine motion in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the small beam apertures in the images due to strong beam modulations in IMRT planning. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of a markerless motion tracking method in spine SBRT delivery using a novel enhanced synthetic treatment beam (ESTB) imaging technique. METHODS: Three clinical spine SBRT plans using 6XFFF beams and sliding window IMRT technique were transferred to a thorax phantom and delivered by a TrueBeam machine. Before delivery, the phantom was aligned to the plan isocenter using CBCT setup and verified with a second CBCT, and then, 2 mm shifts were introduced in both the craniocaudal (CC) and the left-right (LR) directions with the couch. During beam delivery, MV images were continuously taken with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and automatically grabbed by Varian iTools Capture software with a frame rate of 11.6 Hz. After preprocessing for scatter correction and beam intensity compensation, every 50 frames of MV images were combined to generate a series of ESTB images for each beam. The ESTB images were then registered to the projections of the verification CBCT at the matched beam angles to detect the 2 mm shifts. RESULTS: Compared to snapshot MV images, the ESTB images had significantly enlarged fields of view (FOVs) and improved image quality. Based on two-dimensional (2D) rigid registration, the ESTB image to CBCT projection matching showed submillimeter accuracy in detecting motion. Specifically, the root mean square errors in detecting the LR/CC shifts were 0.35/0.28, 0.32/0.35, 0.63/0.44, 0.55/0.51, and 0.69/0.42 mm at gantry angles 180, 160, 140, 120, and 100, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results in the phantom study suggest that ESTB images from a sliding window IMRT plan can be used to detect spine motion, with submillimeter precision in the 2D plane perpendicular to the beam.
Authors: Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; D Michael Lovelock; Ennapadam S Venkatraman; Sean Toner; Jared Johnson; Joan Zatcky; Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Colien Hazelaar; Max Dahele; Hassan Mostafavi; Lineke van der Weide; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Almon S Shiu; Laurence D Rhines; He Wang; Pamela K Allen; Xin Shelley Wang; Eric L Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pengpeng Zhang; Margie Hunt; Arina B Telles; Hai Pham; Michael Lovelock; Ellen Yorke; Guang Li; Laura Happersett; Andreas Rimner; Gig Mageras Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: William A Hall; Liza J Stapleford; Costas G Hadjipanayis; Walter J Curran; Ian Crocker; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Int J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-07-10
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
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: Jihye Koo; Louis Nardella; Michael Degnan; Jacqueline Andreozzi; Hsiang-Hsuan M Yu; Jose Penagaricano; Peter A S Johnstone; Daniel Oliver; Kamran Ahmed; Stephen A Rosenberg; Evan Wuthrick; Roberto Diaz; Vladimir Feygelman; Kujtim Latifi; Eduardo G Moros; Gage Redler Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021 Jan-Dec