Article

Detection of treatment setup errors between two CT scans for patients with head and neck cancer.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143-1708, USA.
Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 3.01). 09/2007; 34(8):3233-42. DOI: 10.1118/1.2751074
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Accuracy of treatment setup for head and neck patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy is of paramount importance. The conventional method using orthogonal portal images can only detect translational setup errors while the most frequent setup errors for head and neck patients could be rotational errors. With the rapid development of image-guided radiotherapy, three-dimensional images are readily acquired and can be used to detect both translational and rotational setup errors. The purpose of this study is to determine the significance of rotational variations between two planning CT scans acquired for each of eight head and neck patients, who experienced substantial weight loss or tumor shrinkage. To this end, using a rigid body assumption, we developed an in-house computer program that utilizes matrix transformations to align point bony landmarks with an incremental best-fit routine. The program returns the quantified translational and rotational shifts needed to align the scans of each patient. The program was tested using a phantom for a set of known translational and rotational shifts. For comparison, a commercial treatment planning system was used to register the two CT scans and estimate the translational errors for these patients. For the eight patients, we found that the average magnitudes and standard deviations of the rotational shifts about the transverse, anterior-posterior, and longitudinal axes were 1.7 +/- 2.3 degrees, 0.8 +/- 0.7 degrees, and 1.8 +/- 1.1 degrees, respectively. The average magnitudes and standard deviations of the translational shifts were 2.5 +/- 2.6 mm, 2.9 +/- 2.8 mm, 2.7 +/- 1.7 mm while the differences detected between our program and the CT-CT fusion method were 1.8 +/- 1.3 mm, 3.3 +/- 5.4 mm, and 3.0 +/- 3.4 mm in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions, respectively. A trend of larger rotational errors resulting in larger translational differences between the two methods was observed. In conclusion, conventional methods used for verifying patient positioning may misinterpret rotational shifts as translational shifts, and our study demonstrated that rotational errors may be significant in the treatment of head and neck cancer.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
51 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy has a well-established role in the management of head and neck cancers. Over the past decade, a variety of new imaging modalities have been incorporated into the radiotherapy planning and delivery process. These technologies are collectively referred to as image-guided radiotherapy and may lead to significant gains in tumor control and radiation side effect profiles. In the following review, these techniques as they are applied to head and neck cancer patients are described, and clinical studies analyzing their use in target delineation, patient positioning, and adaptive radiotherapy are highlighted. Finally, we conclude with a brief discussion of potential areas of further radiotherapy advancement.
    Journal of Oncology 02/2009; 2009:752135.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal was to provide a quantitative evaluation of the accuracy of three different fixation systems for stereotactic radiotherapy and to evaluate patients' acceptance for all fixations. A total of 16 consecutive patients with brain tumours undergoing fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SCRT) were enrolled after informed consent (Clinical trials.gov: NCT00181350). Fixation systems evaluated were the BrainLAB® mask, with and without custom made bite-block (fixations S and A) and a homemade neck support with bite-block (fixation B) based on the BrainLAB® frame. The sequence of measurements was evaluated in a randomized manner with a cross-over design and patients' acceptance by a questionnaire. The mean three-dimensional (3D) displacement and standard deviations were 1.16 ± 0.68 mm for fixation S, 1.92 ± 1.28 and 1.70 ± 0.83 mm for fixations A and B, respectively. There was a significant improvement of the overall alignment (3D vector) when using the standard fixation instead of fixation A or B in the craniocaudal direction (p = 0.037). Rotational deviations were significantly less for the standard fixation S in relation to fixations A (p = 0.005) and B (p = 0.03). EPI imaging with off-line correction further improved reproducibility. Five out of 8 patients preferred the neck support with the bite-block. The mask fixation system in conjunction with a bite-block is the most accurate fixation for SCRT reducing craniocaudal and rotational movements. Patients favoured the more comfortable but less accurate neck support. To optimize the accuracy of SCRT, additional regular portal imaging is warranted.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 12/2011; 188(1):84-90. · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work is to investigate the dosimetric influence of the residual rotational setup errors on head and neck carcinoma (HNC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with routine 3 translational setup corrections and the adequacy of this routine correction. A total of 66 kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image sets were acquired on the first day of treatment and weekly thereafter for 10 patients with HNC and were registered with the corresponding planning CT images, using 2 3-dimensional (3D) rigid registration methods. Method 1 determines the translational setup errors only, and method 2 determines 6-degree (6D) setup errors, i.e., both rotational and translational setup errors. The 6D setup errors determined by method 2 were simulated in the treatment planning system and were then corrected using the corresponding translational data determined by method 1. For each patient, dose distributions for 6 to 7 fractions with various setup uncertainties were generated, and a plan sum was created to determine the total dose distribution through an entire course and was compared with the original treatment plan. The average rotational setup errors were 0.7°± 1.0°, 0.1°±1.9°, and 0.3°±0.7° around left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) axes, respectively. With translational corrections determined by method 1 alone, the dose deviation could be large from fraction to fraction. For a certain fraction, the decrease in prescription dose coverage (V(p)) and the dose that covers 95% of target volume (D(95)) could be up to 15.8% and 13.2% for planning target volume (PTV), and the decrease in V(p) and the dose that covers 98% of target volume (D(98)) could be up to 9.8% and 5.5% for the clinical target volume (CTV). However, for the entire treatment course, for PTV, the plan sum showed that the average V(p) was decreased by 4.2% and D(95) was decreased by 1.2Gy for the first phase of IMRT with a prescription dose of 50Gy. For CTV, the plan sum showed that the average V(p) was decreased by 0.8% and D(98), relative to prescription dose, was not decreased. Among these 10 patients, the plan sum showed that the dose to 1-cm(3) spinal cord ( [Formula: see text] ) increased no more than 1Gy for 7 patients and more than 2Gy for 2 patients. The average increase in [Formula: see text] was 1.2Gy. The study shows that, with translational setup error correction, the overall CTV V(p) has a minor decrease with a 5-mm margin from CTV to PTV. For the spinal cord, a noticeable dose increase was observed for some patients. So to decide whether the routine clinical translational setup error correction is adequate for this HNC IMRT technique, the dosimetric influence of rotational setup errors should be evaluated carefully from case to case when organs at risk are in close proximity to the target.
    Medical dosimetry: official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 12/2012; · 1.26 Impact Factor