skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac

Abstract

Purpose Volumetric information of the spine captured on CBCT can potentially improve the accuracy in spine SBRT setup that has been commonly performed through 2D radiographs. This work evaluates the setup accuracy in spine SBRT using 6D CBCT image guidance that recently became available on Varian systems. Methods ExacTrac radiographs have been commonly used for Spine SBRT setup. The setup process involves first positioning patients with lasers followed by localization imaging, registration, and repositioning. Verification images are then taken providing the residual errors (ExacTracRE) before beam on. CBCT verification is also acquired in our institute. The availability of both ExacTrac and CBCT verifications allows a comparison study. 41 verification CBCT of 16 patients were retrospectively registered with the planning CT enabling 6D corrections, giving CBCT residual errors (CBCTRE) which were compared with ExacTracRE. Results The RMS discrepancies between CBCTRE and ExacTracRE are 1.70mm, 1.66mm, 1.56mm in vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions and 0.27°, 0.49°, 0.35° in yaw, roll and pitch respectively. The corresponding mean discrepancies (and standard deviation) are 0.62mm (1.60mm), 0.00mm (1.68mm), −0.80mm (1.36mm) and 0.05° (0.58°), 0.11° (0.48°), −0.16° (0.32°). Of the 41 CBCT, 17 had high-Z surgical implants. No significant difference in ExacTrac-to-CBCT discrepancy was observed betweenmore » patients with and without the implants. Conclusion Multiple factors can contribute to the discrepancies between CBCT and ExacTrac: 1) the imaging iso-centers of the two systems, while calibrated to coincide, can be different; 2) the ROI used for registration can be different especially if ribs were included in ExacTrac images; 3) small patient motion can occur between the two verification image acquisitions; 4) the algorithms can be different between CBCT (volumetric) and ExacTrac (radiographic) registrations.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22494060
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRECTIONS; ERRORS; IMAGES; IMPLANTS; PATIENTS; SURGERY; VERIFICATION; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Han, Z, Yip, S, Lewis, J, Mannarino, E, Friesen, S, Wagar, M, and Hacker, F. SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924121.
Han, Z, Yip, S, Lewis, J, Mannarino, E, Friesen, S, Wagar, M, & Hacker, F. SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924121.
Han, Z, Yip, S, Lewis, J, Mannarino, E, Friesen, S, Wagar, M, and Hacker, F. Mon . "SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924121.
@article{osti_22494060,
title = {SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac},
author = {Han, Z and Yip, S and Lewis, J and Mannarino, E and Friesen, S and Wagar, M and Hacker, F},
abstractNote = {Purpose Volumetric information of the spine captured on CBCT can potentially improve the accuracy in spine SBRT setup that has been commonly performed through 2D radiographs. This work evaluates the setup accuracy in spine SBRT using 6D CBCT image guidance that recently became available on Varian systems. Methods ExacTrac radiographs have been commonly used for Spine SBRT setup. The setup process involves first positioning patients with lasers followed by localization imaging, registration, and repositioning. Verification images are then taken providing the residual errors (ExacTracRE) before beam on. CBCT verification is also acquired in our institute. The availability of both ExacTrac and CBCT verifications allows a comparison study. 41 verification CBCT of 16 patients were retrospectively registered with the planning CT enabling 6D corrections, giving CBCT residual errors (CBCTRE) which were compared with ExacTracRE. Results The RMS discrepancies between CBCTRE and ExacTracRE are 1.70mm, 1.66mm, 1.56mm in vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions and 0.27°, 0.49°, 0.35° in yaw, roll and pitch respectively. The corresponding mean discrepancies (and standard deviation) are 0.62mm (1.60mm), 0.00mm (1.68mm), −0.80mm (1.36mm) and 0.05° (0.58°), 0.11° (0.48°), −0.16° (0.32°). Of the 41 CBCT, 17 had high-Z surgical implants. No significant difference in ExacTrac-to-CBCT discrepancy was observed between patients with and without the implants. Conclusion Multiple factors can contribute to the discrepancies between CBCT and ExacTrac: 1) the imaging iso-centers of the two systems, while calibrated to coincide, can be different; 2) the ROI used for registration can be different especially if ribs were included in ExacTrac images; 3) small patient motion can occur between the two verification image acquisitions; 4) the algorithms can be different between CBCT (volumetric) and ExacTrac (radiographic) registrations.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924121},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}