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

Title: SU-F-J-24: Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the setup uncertainties for brain sites when using BrainLAB’s ExacTrac X-ray 6D system for daily pretreatment to determine the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Methods: Between August 2012 and April 2015, 28 patients with brain tumors were treated by daily image-guided radiotherapy using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guidance system of the Novalis-Tx linear accelerator. DUONTM (Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) masks were used to fix the head. The radiotherapy was fractionated into 27–33 treatments. In total, 844 image verifications were performed for 28 patients and used for the analysis. The setup corrections along with the systematic and random errors were analyzed for six degrees of freedom in the translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (pitch, roll, and yaw) dimensions. Results: Optimal PTV margins were calculated based on van Herk et al.’s [margin recipe = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ − 3 mm] and Stroom et al.’s [margin recipe = 2∑ + 0.7σ] formulas. The systematic errors (∑) were 0.72, 1.57, and 0.97 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively, and 0.72°, 0.87°, and 0.83° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. The random errors (σ) were 0.31, 0.46, and 0.54 mmmore » in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical rotational dimensions, respectively, and 0.28°, 0.24°, and 0.31° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. According to van Herk et al.’s and Stroom et al.’s recipes, the recommended lateral PTV margins were 0.97 and 1.66 mm, respectively; the longitudinal margins were 1.26 and 3.47 mm, respectively; and the vertical margins were 0.21 and 2.31 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Therefore, daily setup verifications using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guide system are very useful for evaluating the setup uncertainties and determining the setup margin.∑σ.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Daegu (Korea, Republic of)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632159
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BRAIN; CORRECTIONS; ERRORS; HEAD; IMAGES; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; RADIOTHERAPY; RANDOMNESS; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Kim, S, Oh, S, Yea, J, and Park, J. SU-F-J-24: Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955932.
Kim, S, Oh, S, Yea, J, & Park, J. SU-F-J-24: Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955932.
Kim, S, Oh, S, Yea, J, and Park, J. 2016. "SU-F-J-24: Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955932.
@article{osti_22632159,
title = {SU-F-J-24: Setup Uncertainty and Margin of the ExacTrac 6D Image Guide System for Patients with Brain Tumors},
author = {Kim, S and Oh, S and Yea, J and Park, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: This study evaluated the setup uncertainties for brain sites when using BrainLAB’s ExacTrac X-ray 6D system for daily pretreatment to determine the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Methods: Between August 2012 and April 2015, 28 patients with brain tumors were treated by daily image-guided radiotherapy using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guidance system of the Novalis-Tx linear accelerator. DUONTM (Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) masks were used to fix the head. The radiotherapy was fractionated into 27–33 treatments. In total, 844 image verifications were performed for 28 patients and used for the analysis. The setup corrections along with the systematic and random errors were analyzed for six degrees of freedom in the translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (pitch, roll, and yaw) dimensions. Results: Optimal PTV margins were calculated based on van Herk et al.’s [margin recipe = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ − 3 mm] and Stroom et al.’s [margin recipe = 2∑ + 0.7σ] formulas. The systematic errors (∑) were 0.72, 1.57, and 0.97 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively, and 0.72°, 0.87°, and 0.83° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. The random errors (σ) were 0.31, 0.46, and 0.54 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical rotational dimensions, respectively, and 0.28°, 0.24°, and 0.31° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. According to van Herk et al.’s and Stroom et al.’s recipes, the recommended lateral PTV margins were 0.97 and 1.66 mm, respectively; the longitudinal margins were 1.26 and 3.47 mm, respectively; and the vertical margins were 0.21 and 2.31 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Therefore, daily setup verifications using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guide system are very useful for evaluating the setup uncertainties and determining the setup margin.∑σ.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955932},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To assess the prostate motion from day-to-day setup, as well as during irradiation time, to calculate planning target volume (PTV) margins. PTV margins differ depending on the clinical implementation of an image-guided system. Three cases were considered in this study: daily bony anatomy match, center of gravity of the implanted marker seeds calculated with a limited number of imaged days, and daily online correction based on implanted marker seeds. Methods and Materials: A cohort of 30 nonrandomized patients and 1,330 pairs of stereoscopic kV images have been used to determine the prostate movement. The commercial image guided positioning toolmore » employed was ExacTrac X-Ray 6D (BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Results: Planning target volume margins such that a minimum of 95% of the prescribed dose covers the clinical target volume for 90% of the population are presented. PTV margins based on daily bony anatomy match, including intrafraction correction, would be 11.5, 13.5, and 4.5 mm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and right-left directions, respectively. This margin can be further reduced to 8.1, 8.6, and 4.8 mm (including intrafraction motion) if implanted marker seeds are used. Finally, daily on line correction based on marker seeds would result in the smallest of the studied margins: 4.7, 6.2, and 1.9 mm. Conclusion: Planning target volume margins are dependent on the local clinical use of the image-guided RT system available in any radiotherapy department.« less
  • 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
  • Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery using frame-based positioning is a well-established technique for the treatment of benign and malignant lesions. By contrast, a new trend toward frameless systems using image-guided positioning techniques is gaining mainstream acceptance. This study was designed to measure the detection and positioning accuracy of the ExacTrac/Novalis Body (ET/NB) for rotations and to compare the accuracy of the frameless with the frame-based radiosurgery technique. Methods and Materials: A program was developed in house to rotate reference computed tomography images. The angles measured by the system were compared with the known rotations. The accuracy of ET/NB was evaluated with amore » head phantom with seven lead beads inserted, mounted on a treatment couch equipped with a robotic tilt module, and was measured with a digital water level and portal films. Multiple hidden target tests (HTT) were performed to measure the overall accuracy of the different positioning techniques for radiosurgery (i.e., frameless and frame-based with relocatable mask or invasive ring, respectively). Results: The ET/NB system can detect rotational setup errors with an average accuracy of 0.09 Degree-Sign (standard deviation [SD] 0.06 Degree-Sign ), 0.02 Degree-Sign (SD 0.07 Degree-Sign ), and 0.06 Degree-Sign (SD 0.14 Degree-Sign ) for longitudinal, lateral, and vertical rotations, respectively. The average positioning accuracy was 0.06 Degree-Sign (SD 0.04 Degree-Sign ), 0.08 Degree-Sign (SD 0.06 Degree-Sign ), and 0.08 Degree-Sign (SD 0.07 Degree-Sign ) for longitudinal, lateral and vertical rotations, respectively. The results of the HTT showed an overall three-dimensional accuracy of 0.76 mm (SD 0.46 mm) for the frameless technique, 0.87 mm (SD 0.44 mm) for the relocatable mask, and 1.19 mm (SD 0.45 mm) for the frame-based technique. Conclusions: The study showed high detection accuracy and a subdegree positioning accuracy. On the basis of phantom studies, the frameless technique showed comparable accuracy to the frame-based approach.« less
  • 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, stereoscopicmore » 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.« less
  • Temporary, low dose rate brachytherapy to the margins of resected brain tumors, using a balloon catheter system (GliaSite Radiation Therapy System) and liquid I-125 radiation source (Iotrex), began in 2002 at the University of Arizona Medical Center. Initially, all patients were treated on an inpatient basis. For patient convenience, we converted to outpatient therapy. In this article we review the exposure data and safety history for the 37 patients treated as outpatients. Proper patient selection and instruction is crucial to having a successful outpatient brachytherapy program. A set of evaluation criteria and patient instructions were developed in compliance with themore » U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's document NUREG-1556 Volume 9 (Appendix U) and Arizona State Nuclear regulatory guidelines, which specify acceptable exposure rates for outpatient release in this setting. Of the 37 patients monitored, 26 patients were treated for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), six for primary GBM, and five for metastatic brain tumors. All 37 patients and their primary caregivers gave signed agreement to follow a specific set of instructions and were released for the duration of brachytherapy (3-7 days). The typical prescription dose was 60 Gy delivered at 0.5 cm from the balloon surface. Afterloaded activities in these patients ranged from 90.9 to 750.0 mCi and measured exposure rates at 1 m from the head were less than 14 mR/h. The mean exposure to the caretaker measured by personal radiation Landauer Luxel+ whole body dosimeters for 25 caretakers was found to be 9.6 mR, which was significantly less than the mean calculated exposure of 136.8 mR. For properly selected patients, outpatient brachytherapy is simple and can be performed within established regulatory guidelines.« less