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. 2016. "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 = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • 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
  • Lung tumours move due to respiratory motion. This is managed during planning by acquiring a 4DCT and capturing the excursion of the GTV (gross tumour volume) throughout the breathing cycle within an IGTV (Internal Gross Tumour Volume) contour. Patients undergo a verification cone-beam CT (CBCT) scan immediately prior to treatment. 3D reconstructed images do not consider tumour motion, resulting in image artefacts, such as blurring. This may lead to difficulty in identifying the tumour on reconstructed images. It would be valuable to create a 4DCBCT reconstruction of the tumour motion to confirm that does indeed remain within the planned IGTV.more » CBCT projections of a Quasar Respiratory Motion Phantom are acquired in Treatment mode (half-fan scan) on a Varian TrueBeam accelerator. This phantom contains a mobile, low-density lung insert with an embedded 3cm diameter tumour object. It is programmed to create a 15s periodic, 2cm (sup/inf) displacement. A Varian Real-time Position Management (RPM) tracking-box is placed on the phantom breathing platform. Breathing phase information is automatically integrated into the projection image files. Using in-house Matlab programs and RTK (Reconstruction Tool Kit) open-source toolboxes, the projections are re-binned into 10 phases and a 4DCBCT scan reconstructed. The planning IGTV is registered to the 4DCBCT and the tumour excursion is verified to remain within the planned contour. This technique successfully reconstructs 4DCBCT images using clinical modes for a breathing phantom. UBC-BCCA ethics approval has been obtained to perform 4DCBCT reconstructions on lung patients (REB#H12-00192). Clinical images will be accrued starting April 2014.« less
  • The ExacTrac X-Ray 6D image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) system will be described and its performance evaluated. The system is mainly an integration of 2 subsystems: (1) an infrared (IR)-based optical positioning system (ExacTrac) and (2) a radiographic kV x-ray imaging system (X-Ray 6D). The infrared system consists of 2 IR cameras, which are used to monitor reflective body markers placed on the patient's skin to assist in patient initial setup, and an IR reflective reference star, which is attached to the treatment couch and can assist in couch movement with spatial resolution to better than 0.3 mm. The radiographic kV devicesmore » consist of 2 oblique x-ray imagers to obtain high-quality radiographs for patient position verification and adjustment. The position verification is made by fusing the radiographs with the simulation CT images using either 3 degree-of-freedom (3D) or 6 degree-of-freedom (6D) fusion algorithms. The position adjustment is performed using the infrared system according to the verification results. The reliability of the fusion algorithm will be described based on phantom and patient studies. The results indicated that the 6D fusion method is better compared to the 3D method if there are rotational deviations between the simulation and setup positions. Recently, the system has been augmented with the capabilities for image-guided positioning of targets in motion due to respiration and for gated treatment of those targets. The infrared markers provide a respiratory signal for tracking and gating of the treatment beam, with the x-ray system providing periodic confirmation of patient position relative to the gating window throughout the duration of the gated delivery.« less
  • Purpose: To improve CBCT image quality for image-guided radiotherapy by applying advanced reconstruction algorithms to overcome scatter, noise, and artifact limitations Methods: CBCT is used extensively for patient setup in radiotherapy. However, image quality generally falls short of diagnostic CT, limiting soft-tissue based positioning and potential applications such as adaptive radiotherapy. The conventional TrueBeam CBCT reconstructor uses a basic scatter correction and FDK reconstruction, resulting in residual scatter artifacts, suboptimal image noise characteristics, and other artifacts like cone-beam artifacts. We have developed an advanced scatter correction that uses a finite-element solver (AcurosCTS) to model the behavior of photons as theymore » pass (and scatter) through the object. Furthermore, iterative reconstruction is applied to the scatter-corrected projections, enforcing data consistency with statistical weighting and applying an edge-preserving image regularizer to reduce image noise. The combined algorithms have been implemented on a GPU. CBCT projections from clinically operating TrueBeam systems have been used to compare image quality between the conventional and improved reconstruction methods. Planning CT images of the same patients have also been compared. Results: The advanced scatter correction removes shading and inhomogeneity artifacts, reducing the scatter artifact from 99.5 HU to 13.7 HU in a typical pelvis case. Iterative reconstruction provides further benefit by reducing image noise and eliminating streak artifacts, thereby improving soft-tissue visualization. In a clinical head and pelvis CBCT, the noise was reduced by 43% and 48%, respectively, with no change in spatial resolution (assessed visually). Additional benefits include reduction of cone-beam artifacts and reduction of metal artifacts due to intrinsic downweighting of corrupted rays. Conclusion: The combination of an advanced scatter correction with iterative reconstruction substantially improves CBCT image quality. It is anticipated that clinically acceptable reconstruction times will result from a multi-GPU implementation (the algorithms are under active development and not yet commercially available). All authors are employees of and (may) own stock of Varian Medical Systems.« less
  • Purpose: Phase-space files for Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam beams have been made available by Varian. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the distributed phase-space files for flattening filter free (FFF) beams, against experimental measurements from ten TrueBeam Linacs. Methods: The phase-space files have been used as input in PRIMO, a recently released Monte Carlo program based on thePENELOPE code. Simulations of 6 and 10 MV FFF were computed in a virtual water phantom for field sizes 3 × 3, 6 × 6, and 10 × 10 cm{sup 2} using 1 × 1more » × 1 mm{sup 3} voxels and for 20 × 20 and 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} with 2 × 2 × 2 mm{sup 3} voxels. The particles contained in the initial phase-space files were transported downstream to a plane just above the phantom surface, where a subsequent phase-space file was tallied. Particles were transported downstream this second phase-space file to the water phantom. Experimental data consisted of depth doses and profiles at five different depths acquired at SSD = 100 cm (seven datasets) and SSD = 90 cm (three datasets). Simulations and experimental data were compared in terms of dose difference. Gamma analysis was also performed using 1%, 1 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria of dose-difference and distance-to-agreement, respectively. Additionally, the parameters characterizing the dose profiles of unflattened beams were evaluated for both measurements and simulations. Results: Analysis of depth dose curves showed that dose differences increased with increasing field size and depth; this effect might be partly motivated due to an underestimation of the primary beam energy used to compute the phase-space files. Average dose differences reached 1% for the largest field size. Lateral profiles presented dose differences well within 1% for fields up to 20 × 20 cm{sup 2}, while the discrepancy increased toward 2% in the 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} cases. Gamma analysis resulted in an agreement of 100% when a 2%, 2 mm criterion was used, with the only exception of the 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} field (∼95% agreement). With the more stringent criteria of 1%, 1 mm, the agreement reduced to almost 95% for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm{sup 2}, worse for larger fields. Unflatness and slope FFF-specific parameters are in line with the possible energy underestimation of the simulated results relative to experimental data. Conclusions: The agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data proved that the evaluated Varian phase-space files for FFF beams from TrueBeam can be used as radiation sources for accurate Monte Carlo dose estimation, especially for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm{sup 2}, that is the range of field sizes mostly used in combination to the FFF, high dose rate beams.« less