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

Title: SU-E-T-659: Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy of Stereotactic Radiotherapy with the Frameless 6D-ExacTrac System Using Statistical Modeling

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate patient setup accuracy and quantify individual and cumulative positioning uncertainties associated with different hardware and software components of the stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) with the frameless-6D-ExacTrac system. Methods: A statistical model was used to evaluate positioning uncertainties of the different components of SRS/SRT treatment with the BrainLAB 6D-ExacTrac system using the positioning shifts of 35 patients having cranial lesions (49 total lesions treated in 1, 3, 5 fractions). All these patients were immobilized with rigid head-and-neck masks, simulated with BrainLAB-localizer and planned with iPlan treatment planning system. Infrared imaging (IR) was used initially to setup patients. Then, stereoscopic x-ray images (XC) were acquired and registered to corresponding digitally-reconstructed-radiographs using bony-anatomy matching to calculate 6D-translational and rotational shifts. When the shifts were within tolerance (0.7mm and 1°), treatment was initiated. Otherwise corrections were applied and additional x-rays were acquired (XV) to verify that patient position was within tolerance. Results: The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR-frame, x-ray imaging, MV and kV isocentricity were quantified individually. Mask uncertainty (Translational: Lateral, Longitudinal, Vertical; Rotational: Pitch, Roll, Yaw) was the largest and varied with patients in the range (−1.05−1.50mm, −5.06–3.57mm, −5.51−3.49mm; −1.40−2.40°, −1.24−1.74°, and −2.43−1.90°) obtained from mean of XC shifts formore » each patient. Setup uncertainty in IR positioning (0.88,2.12,1.40mm, and 0.64,0.83,0.96°) was extracted from standard-deviation of XC. Systematic uncertainties of the localizer (−0.03,−0.01,0.03mm, and −0.03,0.00,−0.01°) and frame (0.18,0.25,−1.27mm,−0.32,0.18, and 0.47°) were extracted from means of all XV setups and mean of all XC distributions, respectively. Uncertainties in isocentricity of the MV radiotherapy machine were (0.27,0.24,0.34mm) and kV-imager (0.15,−0.4,0.21mm). Conclusion: A statistical model was developed to evaluate the individual and cumulative systematic and random uncertainties induced by the different hardware and software components of the 6D-ExacTrac-system. The immobilization mask was associated with the largest positioning uncertainty.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538167
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:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ACCURACY; BEAM POSITION; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER CODES; EVALUATION; HEAD; IMAGES; PATIENTS; POSITIONING; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODELS; X RADIATION

Citation Formats

Keeling, V, Jin, H, Hossain, S, Algan, O, Ahmad, S, and Ali, I. SU-E-T-659: Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy of Stereotactic Radiotherapy with the Frameless 6D-ExacTrac System Using Statistical Modeling. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4925022.
Keeling, V, Jin, H, Hossain, S, Algan, O, Ahmad, S, & Ali, I. SU-E-T-659: Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy of Stereotactic Radiotherapy with the Frameless 6D-ExacTrac System Using Statistical Modeling. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925022.
Keeling, V, Jin, H, Hossain, S, Algan, O, Ahmad, S, and Ali, I. Mon . "SU-E-T-659: Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy of Stereotactic Radiotherapy with the Frameless 6D-ExacTrac System Using Statistical Modeling". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925022.
@article{osti_22538167,
title = {SU-E-T-659: Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy of Stereotactic Radiotherapy with the Frameless 6D-ExacTrac System Using Statistical Modeling},
author = {Keeling, V and Jin, H and Hossain, S and Algan, O and Ahmad, S and Ali, I},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To evaluate patient setup accuracy and quantify individual and cumulative positioning uncertainties associated with different hardware and software components of the stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) with the frameless-6D-ExacTrac system. Methods: A statistical model was used to evaluate positioning uncertainties of the different components of SRS/SRT treatment with the BrainLAB 6D-ExacTrac system using the positioning shifts of 35 patients having cranial lesions (49 total lesions treated in 1, 3, 5 fractions). All these patients were immobilized with rigid head-and-neck masks, simulated with BrainLAB-localizer and planned with iPlan treatment planning system. Infrared imaging (IR) was used initially to setup patients. Then, stereoscopic x-ray images (XC) were acquired and registered to corresponding digitally-reconstructed-radiographs using bony-anatomy matching to calculate 6D-translational and rotational shifts. When the shifts were within tolerance (0.7mm and 1°), treatment was initiated. Otherwise corrections were applied and additional x-rays were acquired (XV) to verify that patient position was within tolerance. Results: The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR-frame, x-ray imaging, MV and kV isocentricity were quantified individually. Mask uncertainty (Translational: Lateral, Longitudinal, Vertical; Rotational: Pitch, Roll, Yaw) was the largest and varied with patients in the range (−1.05−1.50mm, −5.06–3.57mm, −5.51−3.49mm; −1.40−2.40°, −1.24−1.74°, and −2.43−1.90°) obtained from mean of XC shifts for each patient. Setup uncertainty in IR positioning (0.88,2.12,1.40mm, and 0.64,0.83,0.96°) was extracted from standard-deviation of XC. Systematic uncertainties of the localizer (−0.03,−0.01,0.03mm, and −0.03,0.00,−0.01°) and frame (0.18,0.25,−1.27mm,−0.32,0.18, and 0.47°) were extracted from means of all XV setups and mean of all XC distributions, respectively. Uncertainties in isocentricity of the MV radiotherapy machine were (0.27,0.24,0.34mm) and kV-imager (0.15,−0.4,0.21mm). Conclusion: A statistical model was developed to evaluate the individual and cumulative systematic and random uncertainties induced by the different hardware and software components of the 6D-ExacTrac-system. The immobilization mask was associated with the largest positioning uncertainty.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4925022},
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}
}
  • 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 ExacTracmore » 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.« less
  • Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) requires a controlled immobilization and position monitoring of patient and target. The purpose of this work is to analyze the performance of the imaging system ExacTrac® (ETX) using infrared and fiducial markers. Materials and methods: In order to assure the accuracy of isocenter localization, a Quality Assurance procedure was applied using an infrared marker-based positioning system. Scans were acquired of an inhouse-agar gel and solid water phantom with infrared spheres. In the inner part of the phantom, three reference markers were delineated as reference and one pellet was place internally; which was assigned as themore » isocenter. The iPlan® RT Dose treatment planning system. Images were exported to the ETX console. Images were acquired with the ETX to check the correctness of the isocenter placement. Adjustments were made in 6D the reference markers were used to fuse the images. Couch shifts were registered. The procedure was repeated for verification purposes. Results: The data recorded of the verifications in translational and rotational movements showed averaged 3D spatial uncertainties of 0.31 ± 0.42 mm respectively 0.82° ± 0.46° in the phantom and the first correction of these uncertainties were of 1.51 ± 1.14 mm respectively and 1.37° ± 0.61°. Conclusions: This study shows a high accuracy and repeatability in positioning the selected isocenter. The ETX-system for verifying the treatment isocenter position has the ability to monitor the tracing position of interest, making it possible to be used for SBRT positioning within uncertainty ≤1mm.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate setup accuracy and quantify individual systematic and random errors for the various hardware and software components of the frameless 6D-BrainLAB ExacTrac system. Methods: 35 patients with cranial lesions, some with multiple isocenters (50 total lesions treated in 1, 3, 5 fractions), were investigated. All patients were simulated with a rigid head-and-neck mask and the BrainLAB localizer. CT images were transferred to the IPLAN treatment planning system where optimized plans were generated using stereotactic reference frame based on the localizer. The patients were setup initially with infrared (IR) positioning ExacTrac system. Stereoscopic X-ray images (XC: X-ray Correction) weremore » registered to their corresponding digitally-reconstructed-radiographs, based on bony anatomy matching, to calculate 6D-translational and rotational (Lateral, Longitudinal, Vertical, Pitch, Roll, Yaw) shifts. XC combines systematic errors of the mask, localizer, image registration, frame, and IR. If shifts were below tolerance (0.7 mm translational and 1 degree rotational), treatment was initiated; otherwise corrections were applied and additional X-rays were acquired to verify patient position (XV: X-ray Verification). Statistical analysis was used to extract systematic and random errors of the different components of the 6D-ExacTrac system and evaluate the cumulative setup accuracy. Results: Mask systematic errors (translational; rotational) were the largest and varied from one patient to another in the range (−15 to 4mm; −2.5 to 2.5degree) obtained from mean of XC for each patient. Setup uncertainty in IR positioning (0.97,2.47,1.62mm;0.65,0.84,0.96degree) was extracted from standard-deviation of XC. Combined systematic errors of the frame and localizer (0.32,−0.42,−1.21mm; −0.27,0.34,0.26degree) was extracted from mean of means of XC distributions. Final patient setup uncertainty was obtained from the standard deviations of XV (0.57,0.77,0.67mm,0.39,0.35,0.30degree). Conclusion: Statistical analysis was used to calculate cumulative and individual systematic errors from the different hardware and software components of the 6D-ExacTrac-system. Patients were treated with cumulative errors (<1mm,<1degree) with XV image guidance.« less
  • Purpose: To determine dosimetric impact of positioning errors in the stereotactic hypo-fractionated treatment of intracranial lesions using 3Dtransaltional and 3D-rotational corrections (6D) frameless BrainLAB ExacTrac X-Ray system. Methods: 20 cranial lesions, treated in 3 or 5 fractions, were selected. An infrared (IR) optical positioning system was employed for initial patient setup followed by stereoscopic kV X-ray radiographs for position verification. 6D-translational and rotational shifts were determined to correct patient position. If these shifts were above tolerance (0.7 mm translational and 1° rotational), corrections were applied and another set of X-rays was taken to verify patient position. Dosimetric impact (D95, Dmin,more » Dmax, and Dmean of planning target volume (PTV) compared to original plans) of positioning errors for initial IR setup (XC: Xray Correction) and post-correction (XV: X-ray Verification) was determined in a treatment planning system using a method proposed by Yue et al. (Med. Phys. 33, 21-31 (2006)) with 3D-translational errors only and 6D-translational and rotational errors. Results: Absolute mean translational errors (±standard deviation) for total 92 fractions (XC/XV) were 0.79±0.88/0.19±0.15 mm (lateral), 1.66±1.71/0.18 ±0.16 mm (longitudinal), 1.95±1.18/0.15±0.14 mm (vertical) and rotational errors were 0.61±0.47/0.17±0.15° (pitch), 0.55±0.49/0.16±0.24° (roll), and 0.68±0.73/0.16±0.15° (yaw). The average changes (loss of coverage) in D95, Dmin, Dmax, and Dmean were 4.5±7.3/0.1±0.2%, 17.8±22.5/1.1±2.5%, 0.4±1.4/0.1±0.3%, and 0.9±1.7/0.0±0.1% using 6Dshifts and 3.1±5.5/0.0±0.1%, 14.2±20.3/0.8±1.7%, 0.0±1.2/0.1±0.3%, and 0.7±1.4/0.0±0.1% using 3D-translational shifts only. The setup corrections (XC-XV) improved the PTV coverage by 4.4±7.3% (D95) and 16.7±23.5% (Dmin) using 6D adjustment. Strong correlations were observed between translation errors and deviations in dose coverage for XC. Conclusion: The initial BrainLAB IR system based on rigidity of the mask-frame setup is not sufficient for accurate stereotactic positioning; however, with X-ray imageguidance sub-millimeter accuracy is achieved with negligible deviations in dose coverage. The angular corrections (mean angle summation=1.84°) are important and cause considerable deviations in dose coverage.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the spatial variations of multiple off-axial targets for a single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment plan in ExacTrac 6D robotic couch system (BrainLab AG). Methods: Five metallic ball bearing (BB) markers were placed sparsely in 3D off-axial locations (non-coplanar) inside a skull phantom as the representatives of multiple targets mimicking multiple brain metastases. The locations of the BB markers were carefully chosen to minimize overlapping of each other in a port imaging detector plane. The skull phantom was immobilized by a frameless mask and CT scanned with a BrainLab Head and Neck Localizer using a GE Optimamore » MDCT scanner. The CT images were exported to iPlan software (BrainLab AG) and a multiple target PTV was drawn by combining all the contours of the BBs. The margin of the MLC opening was selected as 3 mm expansion outward. Two coplanar arc beams were placed to generate a single isocenter SRS plan to treat the PTV. The arc beams were delivered using Novalis Tx system with portal imaging acquisition mode per 10% temporal resolution. The locations of the BBs were visualized and analyzed with respect to the MLC aperture in the treatment plan similar to the Winston-Lutz test. Results: All the BBs were clearly identified inside the MLC openings. The positional errors for the BBs were overall less than 1 mm along the rotational path of the two arcs. Conclusion: This study verified that the spatial deviations of multiple off-axial targets for a single isocenter SRS treatment plan is within sub-millimeter range in ExacTrac 6D robotic couch system. Accompanied with the Winston-Lutz test, this test will quality-assure the spatial accuracies of the isocenter as well as the positions of multiple off-axial targets for the SRS treatment using a single isocenter multiple target treatment plan.« less