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

Title: SU-F-J-42: Comparison of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Cranial Radiotherapy

Abstract

Purpose: To compare online image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam CT (CBCT) and BrainLab ExacTrac x-ray imaging systems for cranial radiotherapy. Method: Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (Version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom, which was designed to evaluate isocenter-location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters were selected at various locations in the phantom, which represented clinical treatment sites. CBCT and ExacTrac x-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included thirteen patients. CBCT and ExacTrac x-ray images were taken at each patient’s treatment position. Six-dimensional image registrations were performed on CBCT and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from CBCT and ExacTrac were compared. Results: In the phantom study, the average residual-error differences between CBCT and ExacTrac image registrations were: 0.16±0.10 mm, 0.35±0.20 mm, and 0.21±0.15 mm, in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual-error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were: 0.36±0.11 degree, 0.14±0.10 degree, and 0.12±0.10 degree, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual-error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directionsmore » were: 0.13±0.13 mm, 0.37±0.21 mm, 0.22±0.17 mm, respectively. The average residual-error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were: 0.30±0.10 degree, 0.18±0.11 degree, and 0.22±0.13 degree, respectively. Larger residual-error differences (up to 0.79 mm) were observed in the longitudinal direction in the phantom and patient studies where isocenters were located in or close to frontal lobes, i.e., located superficially. Conclusion: Overall, the average residual-error differences were within 0.4 mm in the translational directions and were within 0.4 degree in the rotational directions.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632174
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; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; ERRORS; IMAGES; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Li, J, Shi, W, Andrews, D, Werner-Wasik, M, Lu, B, Yu, Y, Dicker, A, and Liu, H. SU-F-J-42: Comparison of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Cranial Radiotherapy. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955950.
Li, J, Shi, W, Andrews, D, Werner-Wasik, M, Lu, B, Yu, Y, Dicker, A, & Liu, H. SU-F-J-42: Comparison of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Cranial Radiotherapy. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955950.
Li, J, Shi, W, Andrews, D, Werner-Wasik, M, Lu, B, Yu, Y, Dicker, A, and Liu, H. Wed . "SU-F-J-42: Comparison of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Cranial Radiotherapy". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955950.
@article{osti_22632174,
title = {SU-F-J-42: Comparison of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Cranial Radiotherapy},
author = {Li, J and Shi, W and Andrews, D and Werner-Wasik, M and Lu, B and Yu, Y and Dicker, A and Liu, H},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare online image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam CT (CBCT) and BrainLab ExacTrac x-ray imaging systems for cranial radiotherapy. Method: Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (Version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom, which was designed to evaluate isocenter-location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters were selected at various locations in the phantom, which represented clinical treatment sites. CBCT and ExacTrac x-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included thirteen patients. CBCT and ExacTrac x-ray images were taken at each patient’s treatment position. Six-dimensional image registrations were performed on CBCT and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from CBCT and ExacTrac were compared. Results: In the phantom study, the average residual-error differences between CBCT and ExacTrac image registrations were: 0.16±0.10 mm, 0.35±0.20 mm, and 0.21±0.15 mm, in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual-error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were: 0.36±0.11 degree, 0.14±0.10 degree, and 0.12±0.10 degree, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual-error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions were: 0.13±0.13 mm, 0.37±0.21 mm, 0.22±0.17 mm, respectively. The average residual-error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were: 0.30±0.10 degree, 0.18±0.11 degree, and 0.22±0.13 degree, respectively. Larger residual-error differences (up to 0.79 mm) were observed in the longitudinal direction in the phantom and patient studies where isocenters were located in or close to frontal lobes, i.e., located superficially. Conclusion: Overall, the average residual-error differences were within 0.4 mm in the translational directions and were within 0.4 degree in the rotational directions.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955950},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose To compare online image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam CT (CBCT) and BrainLab ExacTrac imaging systems. Methods Tests were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Version 2.0), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (Version 6.0.5). The study was focused on comparing the online image registrations for translational shifts. A Rando head phantom was placed on treatment couch and immobilized with a BrainLab mask. The phantom was shifted by moving the couch translationally for 8 mm with a step size of 1 mm, in vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. At each location, the phantom wasmore » imaged with CBCT and ExacTrac x-ray. CBCT images were registered with TrueBeam and ExacTrac online registration algorithms, respectively. And ExacTrac x-ray image registrations were performed. Shifts calculated from different registrations were compared with nominal couch shifts. Results The averages and ranges of absolute differences between couch shifts and calculated phantom shifts obtained from ExacTrac x-ray registration, ExacTrac CBCT registration with default window, ExaxTrac CBCT registration with adjusted window (bone), Truebeam CBCT registration with bone window, and Truebeam CBCT registration with soft tissue window, were: 0.07 (0.02–0.14), 0.14 (0.01–0.35), 0.12 (0.02–0.28), 0.09 (0–0.20), and 0.06 (0–0.10) mm, in vertical direction; 0.06 (0.01–0.12), 0.27 (0.07–0.57), 0.23 (0.02–0.48), 0.04 (0–0.10), and 0.08 (0– 0.20) mm, in longitudinal direction; 0.05 (0.01–0.21), 0.35 (0.14–0.80), 0.25 (0.01–0.56), 0.19 (0–0.40), and 0.20 (0–0.40) mm, in lateral direction. Conclusion The shifts calculated from ExacTrac x-ray and TrueBeam CBCT registrations were close to each other (the differences between were less than 0.40 mm in any direction), and had better agreements with couch shifts than those from ExacTrac CBCT registrations. There were no significant differences between TrueBeam CBCT registrations using different windows. In ExacTrac CBCT registrations, using bone window led to better agreements than using default window.« less
  • Purpose: To estimate the sensitivity of TrueBeam 2.0 Imaging System 6DoF automatic matching tool through the acquisition of cone-beam CT images in different phantoms applying submillimeter translations and rotations of tenths of a degree and registered with image simulation CT. Methods: To evaluate overall system-wide image, we consider two uncertainties source; First, the uncertainty of the manual phantom displacement (ε-m). This uncertainty is calculated by a digital caliper (0.01 mm) for vertical (Vrt), lateral (Lat) and longitudinal (Lng). A digital inclinometer (0.01°) for the pitch and roll and the own phantom scale to evaluate the coordinate rotation (Rtn). The secondmore » uncertainty is the displacement detected by the algorithm system of matching (σ-d) that we obtain from the standard deviations of the different measurements. We use three different phantoms. The BrainLab Radiosurgery system for supporting masks with an anthropomorphic dummy adapted to allow displacements of 0.1 mm in Vrt, Lat and Lng dimensions and rotations of 0.1° in Pitch dimension. For the analysis of the Rtn and Roll dimensions we use two homemade phantoms (RinoRot and RinoRoll, La Fe Hospital, Valencia, Spain) that allow rotations of 0.3°. Results: In the case of manual displacement of 0.10 ± 0.03 mm in the translations, the system detect 0.10 ± 0.07 mm, 0.12 ± 0.07 mm and 0.13 ± 0.07 mm (mean ± SD) in Lat, Vrt and Lng respectively. In the case of rotational dimension, manual displacement of 0.3 ± 0.1° was detected with 0.19 ± 0.06°, 0.29 ± 0.03° and 0.27 ± 0.06° in Pitch, Roll and Rtn. Conclusion: We conclude that the sensitivity of the automatic matching system is within 0.10 mm in translations and 0.3° in rotations. These values are under the own sensitivity of the software.« less
  • Purpose: Although cone-beam CT (CBCT) imaging became popular in radiation oncology, its imaging dose estimation is still challenging. The goal of this study is to assess the kilovoltage CBCT doses using GMctdospp - an EGSnrc based Monte Carlo (MC) framework. Methods: Two Varian OBI x-ray tube models were implemented in the GMctpdospp framework of EGSnrc MC System. The x-ray spectrum of 125 kVp CBCT beam was acquired from an EGSnrc/BEAMnrc simulation and validated with IPEM report 78. Then, the spectrum was utilized as an input spectrum in GMctdospp dose calculations. Both full and half bowtie pre-filters of the OBI systemmore » were created by using egs-prism module. The x-ray tube MC models were verified by comparing calculated dosimetric profiles (lateral and depth) to ion chamber measurements for a static x-ray beam irradiation to a cuboid water phantom. An abdominal CBCT imaging doses was simulated in GMctdospp framework using a 5-year-old anthropomorphic phantom. The organ doses and effective dose (ED) from the framework were assessed and compared to the MOSFET measurements and convolution/superposition dose calculations. Results: The lateral and depth dose profiles in the water cuboid phantom were well matched within 6% except a few areas - left shoulder of the half bowtie lateral profile and surface of water phantom. The organ doses and ED from the MC framework were found to be closer to MOSFET measurements and CS calculations within 2 cGy and 5 mSv respectively. Conclusion: This study implemented and validated the Varian OBI x-ray tube models in the GMctdospp MC framework using a cuboid water phantom and CBCT imaging doses were also evaluated in a 5-year-old anthropomorphic phantom. In future study, various CBCT imaging protocols will be implemented and validated and consequently patient CT images will be used to estimate the CBCT imaging doses in patients.« less
  • Purpose: To compute daily dose delivered during radiotherapy, deformable registration needs to be relatively fast, automated, and accurate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of commercial deformable registration software for deforming between two modalities: planning computed tomography (pCT) images acquired for treatment planning and cone beam (CB) CT images acquired prior to each fraction of prostate cancer radiotherapy. Methods: A workflow was designed using MIM Software™ that aligned and deformed pCT into daily CBCT images in two steps: (1) rigid shifts applied after daily CBCT imaging to align patient anatomy to the pCT and (2) normalizedmore » intensity-based deformable registration to account for interfractional anatomical variations. The physician-approved CTV and organ and risk (OAR) contours were deformed from the pCT to daily CBCT over the course of treatment. The same structures were delineated on each daily CBCT by a radiation oncologist. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) mean and standard deviations were calculated to quantify the deformable registration quality for prostate, bladder, rectum and femoral heads. Results: To date, contour comparisons have been analyzed for 31 daily fractions of 2 of 10 of the cohort. Interim analysis shows that right and left femoral head contours demonstrate the highest agreement (DSC: 0.96±0.02) with physician contours. Additionally, deformed bladder (DSC: 0.81±0.09) and prostate (DSC: 0.80±0.07) have good agreement with physician-defined daily contours. Rectum contours have the highest variations (DSC: 0.66±0.10) between the deformed and physician-defined contours on daily CBCT imaging. Conclusion: For structures with relatively high contrast boundaries on CBCT, the MIM automated deformable registration provided accurate representations of the daily contours during treatment delivery. These findings will permit subsequent investigations to automate daily dose computation from CBCT. However, improved methods need to be investigated to improve deformable results for rectum contours.« less
  • Purpose: To assess an accuracy of fiducial maker-based setup using ExacTrac (ExT-based setup) as compared with soft tissue-based setup using Cone-beam CT (CBCT-based setup) for patients with prostate cancer receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the purpose of investigating whether ExT-based setup can be an alternative to CBCT-based setup. Methods: The setup accuracy was analyzed prospectively for 7 prostate cancer patients with implanted three fiducial markers received IMRT. All patients were treated after CBCT-based setup was performed and corresponding shifts were recorded. ExacTrac images were obtained before and after CBCT-based setup. The fiducial marker-based shifts were calculated based on thosemore » two images and recorded on the assumption that the setup correction was carried out by fiducial marker-based auto correction. Mean and standard deviation of absolute differences and the correlation between CBCT and ExT shifts were estimated. Results: A total of 178 image dataset were analyzed. On the differences between CBCT and ExT shifts, 133 (75%) of 178 image dataset resulted in smaller differences than 3 mm in all dimensions. Mean differences in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) dimensions were 1.8 ± 1.9 mm, 0.7 ± 1.9 mm, and 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, respectively. The percentages of shift agreements within ±3 mm were 76% for AP, 90% for SI, and 100% for LR. The Pearson coefficient of correlation for CBCT and ExT shifts were 0.80 for AP, 0.80 for SI, and 0.65 for LR. Conclusion: This work showed that the accuracy of ExT-based setup was correlated with that of CBCT-based setup, implying that ExT-based setup has a potential ability to be an alternative to CBCT-based setup. The further work is to specify the conditions that ExT-based setup can provide the accuracy comparable to CBCT-based setup.« less