Evaluation of multiple image-based modalities for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate carcinoma: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Setup errors and prostate intrafraction motion are main sources of localization uncertainty in prostate cancer radiation therapy. This study evaluates four different imaging modalities 3D ultrasound (US), kV planar images, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and implanted electromagnetic transponders (Calypso/Varian) to assess inter- and intrafraction localization errors during intensity-modulated radiation therapy based treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-seven prostate cancer patients were enrolled in a prospective IRB-approved study and treated to a total dose of 75.6 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). Overall, 1100 fractions were evaluated. For each fraction, treatment targets were localized using US, kV planar images, and CBCT in a sequence defined to determine setup offsets relative to the patient skin tattoos, intermodality differences, and residual errors for each patient and patient cohort. Planning margins, following van Herk's formalism, were estimated based on error distributions. Calypso-based localization was not available for the first eight patients, therefore centroid positions of implanted gold-seed markers imaged prior to and immediately following treatment were used as a motion surrogate during treatment. For the remaining 19 patients, Calypso transponders were used to assess prostate intrafraction motion. RESULTS: The means (µ), and standard deviations (SD) of the systematic (Σ) and random errors (σ) of interfraction prostate shifts (relative to initial skin tattoo positioning), as evaluated using CBCT, kV, and US, averaged over all patients and fractions, were: [µ CBCT = (-1.2, 0.2, 1.1) mm, Σ CBCT = (3.0, 1.4, 2.4) mm, σ CBCT = (3.2, 2.2, 2.5) mm], [µkV = (-2.9, -0.4, 0.5) mm, Σ kV = (3.4, 3.1, 2.6) mm, σ kV = (2.9, 2.0, 2.4) mm], and [µ US = (-3.6, -1.4, 0.0) mm, Σ US = (3.3, 3.5, 2.8) mm, σ US = (4.1, 3.8, 3.6) mm], in the anterior-posterior (A/P), superior-inferior (S/I), and the left-right (L/R) directions, respectively. In the treatment protocol, adjustment of couch was guided by US images. Residual setup errors as assessed by kV images were found to be: µ residual = (-0.4, 0.2, 0.2) mm, Σ residual = (1.0, 1.0,0.7) mm, and σ residual = (2.5, 2.3, 1.8) mm. Intrafraction prostate motion, evaluated using electromagnetic transponders, was: µ intrafxn = (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) mm, Σ intrafxn = (1.3, 1.5, 0.6) mm, and σ intrafxn = (2.6, 2.4, 1.4) mm. Shifts between pre- and post-treatment kV images were: µ kV(post-pre) = (-0.3, 0.8, -0.2), Σ kV(post-pre) = (2.4, 2.7, 2.1) mm, and σ kV(post-pre) = (2.7, 3.2, 3.1) mm. Relative to skin tattoos, planning margins for setup error were within 10-11 mm for all image-based modalities. The use of image guidance was shown to reduce these margins to less than 5 mm. Margins to compensate for both residual setup (interfraction) errors as well as intrafraction motion were 6.6, 6.8, and 3.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of interfraction setup errors, performed with US, CBCT, planar kV images, and electromagnetic transponders, from a large dataset revealed intermodality shifts were comparable (within 3-4 mm). Interfraction planning margins, relative to setup based on skin marks, were generally within the 10 mm prostate-to-planning target volume margin used in our clinic. With image guidance, interfraction residual planning margins were reduced to approximately less than 4 mm. These findings are potentially important for dose escalation studies using smaller margins to better protect normal tissues.

Clinical commissioning and use of the Novalis Tx linear accelerator for SRS and SBRT.

The purpose of this study was to perform comprehensive measurements and testing of a Novalis Tx linear accelerator, and to develop technical guidelines for com-missioning from the time of acceptance testing to the first clinical treatment. The Novalis Tx (NTX) linear accelerator is equipped with, among other features, a high-definition MLC (HD120 MLC) with 2.5 mm central leaves, a 6D robotic couch, an optical guidance positioning system, as well as X-ray-based image guidance tools to provide high accuracy radiation delivery for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. We have performed extensive tests for each of the components, and analyzed the clinical data collected in our clinic. We present technical guidelines in this report focusing on methods for: (1) efficient and accurate beam data collection for commissioning treatment planning systems, including small field output measurements conducted using a wide range of detectors; (2) commissioning tests for the HD120 MLC; (3) data collection for the baseline characteristics of the on-board imager (OBI) and ExacTrac X-ray (ETX) image guidance systems in conjunction with the 6D robotic couch; and (4) end-to-end testing of the entire clinical process. Established from our clinical experience thus far, recommendations are provided for accurate and efficient use of the OBI and ETX localization systems for intra- and extracranial treatment sites. Four results are presented. (1) Basic beam data measurements: Our measurements confirmed the necessity of using small detectors for small fields. Total scatter factors varied significantly (30% to approximately 62%) for small field measurements among detectors. Unshielded stereotactic field diode (SFD) overestimated dose by ~ 2% for large field sizes. Ion chambers with active diameters of 6 mm suffered from significant volume averaging. The sharpest profile penumbra was observed for the SFD because of its small active diameter (0.6 mm). (2) MLC commissioning: Winston Lutz test, light/radiation field congruence, and Picket Fence tests were performed and were within criteria established by the relevant task group reports. The measured mean MLC transmission and dynamic leaf gap of 6 MV SRS beam were 1.17% and 0.36 mm, respectively. (3) Baseline characteristics of OBI and ETX: The isocenter localization errors in the left/right, posterior/anterior, and superior/inferior directions were, respectively, -0.2 ± 0.2 mm, -0.8 ± 0.2 mm, and -0.8 ± 0.4 mm for ETX, and 0.5 ± 0.7 mm, 0.6 ± 0.5 mm, and 0.0 ± 0.5 mm for OBI cone-beam computed tomography. The registration angular discrepancy was 0.1 ± 0.2°, and the maximum robotic couch error was 0.2°. (4) End-to-end tests: The measured isocenter dose differences from the planned values were 0.8% and 0.4%, measured respectively by an ion chamber and film. The gamma pass rate, measured by EBT2 film, was 95% (3% DD and 1 mm DTA). Through a systematic series of quantitative commissioning experiments and end-to-end tests and our initial clinical experience, described in this report, we demonstrate that the NTX is a robust system, with the image guidance and MLC requirements to treat a wide variety of sites - in particular for highly accurate delivery of SRS and SBRT-based treatments.

Experimental validation of the DPM Monte Carlo code using minimally scattered electron beams in heterogeneous media.

A comprehensive set of measurements and calculations has been conducted to investigate the accuracy of the Dose Planning Method (DPM) Monte Carlo code for electron beam dose calculations in heterogeneous media. Measurements were made using 10 MeV and 50 MeV minimally scattered, uncollimated electron beams from a racetrack microtron. Source distributions for the Monte Carlo calculations were reconstructed from in-air ion chamber scans and then benchmarked against measurements in a homogeneous water phantom. The in-air spatial distributions were found to have FWHM of 4.7 cm and 1.3 cm, at 100 cm from the source, for the 10 MeV and 50 MeV beams respectively. Energy spectra for the electron beams were determined by simulating the components of the microtron treatment head using the code MCNP4B. Profile measurements were made using an ion chamber in a water phantom with slabs of lung or bone-equivalent materials submerged at various depths. DPM calculations are, on average, within 2% agreement with measurement for all geometries except for the 50 MeV incident on a 6 cm lung-equivalent slab. Measurements using approximately monoenergetic, 50 MeV, 'pencil-beam'-type electrons in heterogeneous media provide conditions for maximum electronic disequilibrium and hence present a stringent test of the code's electron transport physics; the agreement noted between calculation and measurement illustrates that the DPM code is capable of accurate dose calculation even under such conditions.