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

Title: SU-F-T-638: Is There A Need For Immobilization in SRS?

Abstract

Purpose: Frameless Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly used in the clinic. Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) to simulation-CT match has replaced the 3-dimensional coordinate based set up using a stereotactic localizing frame. The SRS frame however served as both a localizing and immobilizing device. We seek to measure the quality of frameless (mask based) and frame based immobilization and evaluate its impact on target dose. Methods: Each SRS patient was set up by kV on-board imaging (OBI) and then fine-tuned with CBCT. A second CBCT was done at treatment-end to ascertain intrafraction motion. We compared pre- vs post-treatment CBCT shifts for both frameless and frame based SRS patients. CBCT to sim-CT fusion was repeated for each patient off-line to assess systematic residual image registration error. Each patient was re-planned with measured shifts to assess effects on target dose. Results: We analyzed 11 patients (12 lesions) treated with frameless SRS and 6 patients (11 lesions) with a fixed frame system. Average intra-fraction iso-center positioning errors for frameless and frame-based treatments were 1.24 ± 0.57 mm and 0.28 ± 0.08 mm (mean ± s.d.) respectively. Residual error in CBCT registration was 0.24 mm. The frameless positioning uncertainties led to target dose errors in Dminmore » and D95 of 15.5 ± 18.4% and 6.6 ± 9.1% respectively. The corresponding errors in fixed frame SRS were much lower with Dmin and D95 reduced by 4.2 ± 6.5% and D95 2.5 ± 3.8% respectively. Conclusion: Frameless mask provides good immobilization with average patient motion of 1.2 mm during treatment. This exceeds MRI voxel dimensions (∼0.43mm) used for target delineation. Frame-based SRS provides superior patient immobilization with measureable movement no greater than the background noise of the CBCT registration. Small lesions requiring submm precision are better served with a frame based SRS.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649198
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; BACKGROUND NOISE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSES; ERRORS; NMR IMAGING; PATIENTS; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS

Citation Formats

Masterova, K, Sethi, A, Anderson, D, Prabhu, V, Rusu, I, Gros, S, and Melian, E. SU-F-T-638: Is There A Need For Immobilization in SRS?. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956823.
Masterova, K, Sethi, A, Anderson, D, Prabhu, V, Rusu, I, Gros, S, & Melian, E. SU-F-T-638: Is There A Need For Immobilization in SRS?. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956823.
Masterova, K, Sethi, A, Anderson, D, Prabhu, V, Rusu, I, Gros, S, and Melian, E. Wed . "SU-F-T-638: Is There A Need For Immobilization in SRS?". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956823.
@article{osti_22649198,
title = {SU-F-T-638: Is There A Need For Immobilization in SRS?},
author = {Masterova, K and Sethi, A and Anderson, D and Prabhu, V and Rusu, I and Gros, S and Melian, E},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Frameless Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly used in the clinic. Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) to simulation-CT match has replaced the 3-dimensional coordinate based set up using a stereotactic localizing frame. The SRS frame however served as both a localizing and immobilizing device. We seek to measure the quality of frameless (mask based) and frame based immobilization and evaluate its impact on target dose. Methods: Each SRS patient was set up by kV on-board imaging (OBI) and then fine-tuned with CBCT. A second CBCT was done at treatment-end to ascertain intrafraction motion. We compared pre- vs post-treatment CBCT shifts for both frameless and frame based SRS patients. CBCT to sim-CT fusion was repeated for each patient off-line to assess systematic residual image registration error. Each patient was re-planned with measured shifts to assess effects on target dose. Results: We analyzed 11 patients (12 lesions) treated with frameless SRS and 6 patients (11 lesions) with a fixed frame system. Average intra-fraction iso-center positioning errors for frameless and frame-based treatments were 1.24 ± 0.57 mm and 0.28 ± 0.08 mm (mean ± s.d.) respectively. Residual error in CBCT registration was 0.24 mm. The frameless positioning uncertainties led to target dose errors in Dmin and D95 of 15.5 ± 18.4% and 6.6 ± 9.1% respectively. The corresponding errors in fixed frame SRS were much lower with Dmin and D95 reduced by 4.2 ± 6.5% and D95 2.5 ± 3.8% respectively. Conclusion: Frameless mask provides good immobilization with average patient motion of 1.2 mm during treatment. This exceeds MRI voxel dimensions (∼0.43mm) used for target delineation. Frame-based SRS provides superior patient immobilization with measureable movement no greater than the background noise of the CBCT registration. Small lesions requiring submm precision are better served with a frame based SRS.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956823},
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 evaluate the inherent accuracy of using a surface guided radiotherapy system (SGRT) in the setup and monitoring of patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery with an open-face SRS immobilization system. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom was set up using the Qfix Encompass SRS Immobilization System on a Varian Edge with OSMS and Varian TrueBeam with AlignRT. The phantom was positioned at 0° gantry and couch. A reference image was acquired using the SGRT system and an ROI was created over the mask opening. The couch and gantry were rotated to different combinations focusing on clinically used SRS gantry/couch combinations andmore » those blocking the SGRT cameras. Perceived surface deviation by the SGRT system from the reference image was recorded. A Winston-Lutz test was performed on couch angles tested and used to exclude couch walkout. The deviation magnitude was calculated using translational values and rotational raw values were recorded. Results: The maximum couch walkouts were: 0.4mm (Edge) and 0.5mm (TB). Solely rotating the gantry resulted in a median couch deviation of 0.2mm and range of 0.1–0.3mm for both linacs. Only rotating the couch (0° gantry) resulted in median deviations of 0.6mm and 0.5mm with ranges of 0.3–1.0mm and 0.3–0.7mm for the Edge and TB, respectively. Combining gantry and couch rotations, the median deviations were 0.7mm and 0.9mm with ranges of 0.3–1.1mm and 0.2–1.9mm for the Edge and TB, respectively. Including all combinations, rotation, roll, and pitch median deviations ranged from 0.1–0.3° with pitch demonstrating consistently higher values and a maximum deviation of 1.0° (both linacs). Conclusion: SGRT is a reliable monitoring tool, though taking into account system fluctuations, 1mm is too restrictive a site tolerance to use with the Qfix Encompass mask. Gantry rotation has little effect on system fluctuation even with camera blockage, whereas couch rotation has a larger effect.« less
  • Purpose: SRS is an effective non-invasive alternative treatment modality with minimal-toxicity used to treat patients with medically/surgically refractory trigeminal neuralgia root(TNR) or those who may not tolerate surgical intervention. We present our linac-based SRS procedure for TNR treatment and simultaneously report our clinical outcomes. Methods: Twenty-eight TNR-patients treated with frame-based SRS at our institution (2009–2015) with a single-fraction point-dose of 60-80Gy to TNR were included in this IRB-approved study. Experienced neurosurgeon and radiation oncologist delineated the TNR on 1.0mm thin 3D-FIESTA-MRI that was co-registered with 0.7mm thin planning-CT. Treatment plans were generated in iPlan (BrainLAB) with a 4-mm diameter conemore » using 79 arcs with differential-weighting for Novalis-TX 6MV-SRS(1000MU/min) beam and optimized to minimize brainstem dose. Winston-Lutz test was performed before each treatment delivery with sub-millimeter isocenter accuracy. Quality assurance of frame placement was maintained by helmet-bobble-measurement before simulation-CT and before patient setup at treatment couch. OBI-CBCT scan was performed for patient setup verification without applying shifts. On clinical follow up, treatment response was assessed using Barrow Neurological Institute Pain Intensity Score(BNI-score:I–V). Results: 26/28 TNR-patients (16-males/10-females) who were treated with following single-fraction point-dose to isocenter: 80Gy(n=22),75Gy(n=1),70Gy(n=2) and 60Gy(n=1, re-treatment) were followed up. Median follow-up interval was 8.5-months (ranged:1–48.5months). Median age was 70-yr (ranged:43–93-yr). Right/left TNR ratio was 15/11. Delivered total # of average MUs was 19034±1204. Average beam-on-time: 19.0±1.3min. Brainstem max-dose and dose to 0.5cc were 13.3±2.4Gy (ranged:8.1–16.5Gy) and 3.6±0.4Gy (ranged:3.0–4.9Gy). On average, max-dose to optic-apparatus was ≤1.2Gy. Mean value of max-dose to eyes/lens was 0.26Gy/0.11Gy. Overall, 20-patients (77%) responded to treatment: 5(19%) achieved complete pain relief without medication (BNI score: I); 5(19%) had no-pain, decreased medication (BNI-score:II); 2(7.7%) had no-pain, but, continued medication (BNI-score:IIIA), and 8(30.8%) had pain that was well controlled by medication (BNI-score: IIIB). Six-patients (23.0%) did not respond to treatment (BNI-score:IV–V). Neither cranial nerve deficit nor radio-necrosis of temporal lobe was clinically observed. Conclusion: Linac-based SRS for medically/surgically refractory TNR provided an effective treatment option for pain resolution/control with very minimal if any normal tissue toxicity. Longer follow up of these patients is anticipated/needed to confirm our observations.« less
  • Purpose: The data on the α/β ratio of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is scarce in the literature. We have previously proposed a generalized LQ (gLQ) model to address the high dose dilemma of the LQ model. In this study, we applied the gLQ model to both the patients and in vitro cell irradiation data treated with a large range of doses, and investigated the α/β ratio in NSCLC. Methods: 150 patients with T1T2 and non-T1T2 stages were treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). In vitro datasets of 14 NSCLC cell lines from the National Cancer Institute published in Eurmore » J Cancer Clin Oncol. 25(3):527–534 (1989) and 7 NSCLC cell lines published in Cancer Res 57:4285–300 (1997) were included. The gLQ model was used to fit datasets. The least χ2 method was adopted to determine the goodness of fit. Errors of the model parameters were determined by propagating minimal χ2. The α/β ratios from both the patients and these in vitro NSCLC cell lines were obtained. Results: The average of α/β ratios for T1T2 and non-T1T2 NSCLC was 1.45 Gy. The same type of cell lines irradiated with different modalities but almost the same dose rate yielded approximately the same α/β ratio. The average of α/β ratios for NSCLC cell lines in this study was 5.45 Gy. Conclusion: The difference in the α/β ratios between the patients and in vitro cell data is expected and the lower α/β ratio for patients suggests the higher radiosensitivity, which could be associated with higher tumor perfusion or other tumor microenvironmental effects. The α/β ratios derived from the gLQ model can be used in high dose regions or high fraction sizes and are useful to extend our clinical experience accumulated from conversional low-dose fractionation to high dose irradiation schedules.« less
  • Purpose: To commission the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx machine. Methods: The commissioning of Monte-Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone (CC) and electron Monte-Carlo (eMC) beam models was performed through a series of measurements and calculations in medium and in water. In medium measurements relied Octavius 4D QA system with the 1000 SRS detector array for field sizes less than 4 cm × 4 cm and the 1500 detector array for larger field sizes. Heterogeneity corrections were validated using a custom built phantom. Prior to clinical implementation, an end to end testing of a Prostate and H&N VMAT plansmore » was performed. Results: Using a 0.5% uncertainty and 2 mm grid sizes, Tables I and II summarize the MC validation at 6 MV and 18 MV in both medium and water. Tables III and IV show similar comparisons for CC. Using the custom heterogeneity phantom setup of Figure 1 and IGRT guidance summarized in Figure 2, Table V lists the percent pass rate for a 2%, 2 mm gamma criteria at 6 and 18 MV for both MC and CC. The relationship between MC calculations settings of uncertainty and grid size and the gamma passing rate for a prostate and H&N case is shown in Table VI. Table VII lists the results of the eMC calculations compared to measured data for clinically available applicators and Table VIII for small field cutouts. Conclusion: MU calculations using MC are highly sensitive to uncertainty and grid size settings. The difference can be of the order of several per cents. MC is superior to CC for small fields and when using heterogeneity corrections, regardless of field size, making it more suitable for SRS, SBRT and VMAT deliveries. eMC showed good agreement with measurements down to 2 cm − 2 cm field size.« less
  • Purpose: Quality assurance (QA) of complex linear accelerators is critical and highly time consuming. ArcCHECK Machine QA tool is used to test geometric and delivery aspects of linear accelerator. In this study we evaluated the performance of this tool. Methods: Machine QA feature allows user to perform quality assurance tests using ArcCHECK phantom. Following tests were performed 1) Gantry Speed 2) Gantry Rotation 3) Gantry Angle 4)MLC/Collimator QA 5)Beam Profile Flatness & Symmetry. Data was collected on trueBEAM stX machine for 6 MV for a period of one year. The Gantry QA test allows to view errors in gantry angle,more » rotation & assess how accurately the gantry moves around the isocentre. The MLC/Collimator QA tool is used to analyze & locate the differences between leaf bank & jaw position of linac. The flatness & Symmetry test quantifies beam flatness & symmetry in IEC-y & x direction. The Gantry & Flatness/Symmetry test can be performed for static & dynamic delivery. Results: The Gantry speed was 3.9 deg/sec with speed maximum deviation around 0.3 deg/sec. The Gantry Isocentre for arc delivery was 0.9mm & static delivery was 0.4mm. The maximum percent positive & negative difference was found to be 1.9 % & – 0.25 % & maximum distance positive & negative diff was 0.4mm & – 0.3 mm for MLC/Collimator QA. The Flatness for Arc delivery was 1.8 % & Symmetry for Y was 0.8 % & X was 1.8 %. The Flatness for gantry 0°,270°,90° & 180° was 1.75,1.9,1.8 & 1.6% respectively & Symmetry for X & Y was 0.8,0.6% for 0°, 0.6,0.7% for 270°, 0.6,1% for 90° & 0.6,0.7% for 180°. Conclusion: ArcCHECK Machine QA is an useful tool for QA of Modern linear accelerators as it tests both geometric & delivery aspects. This is very important for VMAT, SRS & SBRT treatments.« less