Interactive use of on-line portal imaging in pelvic radiation.

We have evaluated a fluoroscopic on-line portal imaging system in routine clinical radiotherapy, involving the treatment of 566 pelvic fields on 13 patients. The image was typically generated by delivering a radiation dose of 6-8 cGy. Comparison between portal image and simulator film was done by eye and all visible errors were corrected before continuing irradiation. If possible, these corrections were performed from outside the treatment room by moving the patient couch by remote control or by changing collimator parameters. Adjustments were performed on 289/530 (54.5%) evaluable fields or 229/278 (82.4%) evaluable patient set-ups. The lateral couch position was most frequently adjusted (n = 254). The absolute values of the adjustments were 6.8 mm mean (SD 6.6 mm) with a maximum of 40 mm. All absolute values of adjustments exceeding 25 mm were recorded in one patient and those exceeding 15 mm were observed in two patients. Both patients were obese females. Adjustments exceeding 5 mm were observed in all 13 patients. Related to the use of on-line portal imaging, treatment time was increased by a median of 36.5% (mean 45.8%; SD 42.1%). The range was 7.7 to 442%. The fraction of the total treatment time to perform corrections was 22.7% median (mean: 26.0; SD: 11.8%). Statistically significant systematic in-plane errors were found in 7/13 patients. A systematic error was detected on the lateral position of the field in five patients. In one patient a systematic error of the longitudinal field position and in one patient a rotational error was detected. For adjustments in the lateral direction the present method does not allow to detect lateral shifts of less than 2 mm. For adjustments in the longitudinal direction the sensitivity could not be estimated but the available data suggest that 80% of errors < or = 5 mm were not adjusted. In obese patients, random errors may be surprisingly large.

Routine clinical on-line portal imaging followed by immediate field adjustment using a tele-controlled patient couch.

We have evaluated the fluoroscopic on-line portal imaging (OPI) system developed by Siemens (Beamview-1, Concord, CA, U.S.A.) in routine clinical radiotherapy, involving the treatment of 883 fields (559 patient set-ups for treatment) on 21 patients. The image was typically generated by delivering 10 monitor units when used in single exposure or 1-2 monitor units on a large open field followed by 8-10 monitor units on the actual field when double exposure was used. Comparison between the portal image and the simulator film was done by eye. A region of tolerance was drawn on the simulator film and the field edges on the portal image had to project within this region. If this criterion was not met, adjustments followed by verification portal images were done before the remaining field dose was delivered. If possible, these adjustments were performed by moving the patient couch by remote control. The image quality was insufficient for evaluation in 75/883 (8.5%) fields. The abovementioned criterion was not met in 95/808 (11.8%) of the evaluable fields (26/559 patient set-ups were not evaluable). Of the 533 evaluable patient set-ups, 92 had to be adjusted (17.2%) including three (pelvic irradiations) set-ups that were adjusted on both field irradiated during the same radiotherapy session. In one case an incorrect tray (with wrong blocks) was detected and replaced. In one case (a 5.5 x 6.0 cm rectangular larynx field) the x and y axis of the field were interswitched. In one case incorrect focusing of a block was shown by the portal image. To make adjustments, the couch longitudinal position was changed 20 times (range -10 to +15 mm). The lateral position was changed 73 times (range -15 to +16 mm). The height position was changes 6 times (range -7 to +6 mm). Diaphragma rotation changes were performed 5 times (1 degree). The fraction of treatment time that was related to the use of OPI was 30.7% median (mean 32.4%, S.D. 14.1%). The range was 4.1 to 78.6%. On the basis of calculations assuming no OPI would have been used, field treatment time was increased by a median of 44.2% (mean 55.8%; S.D. 41.2%) by using OPI. The fraction of monitor units (fraction of the dose) to generate a satisfactory image was 10% median.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)