Retrospective assessment of a single fiducial marker tracking regimen with robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver tumours.

AIM: To investigate tumour motion tracking uncertainties in the CyberKnife Synchrony system with single fiducial marker in liver tumours. BACKGROUND: In the fiducial-based CyberKnife real-time tumour motion tracking system, multiple fiducial markers are generally used to enable translation and rotation corrections during tracking. However, sometimes a single fiducial marker is employed when rotation corrections are not estimated during treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were analysed for 32 patients with liver tumours where one fiducial marker was implanted. Four-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans were performed to determine the internal target volume (ITV). Before the first treatment fraction, the CT scans were repeated and the marker migration was determined. Log files generated by the Synchrony system were obtained after each treatment and the correlation model errors were calculated. Intra-fractional spine rotations were examined on the spine alignment images before and after each treatment. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) ITV margin was 4.1 (2.3) mm, which correlated weakly with the distance between the fiducial marker and the tumour. The mean migration distance of the marker was 1.5 (0.7) mm. The overall mean correlation model error was 1.03 (0.37) mm in the radial direction. The overall mean spine rotations were 0.27° (0.31), 0.25° (0.22), and 0.23° (0.26) for roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively. The treatment time was moderately associated with the correlation model errors and weakly related to spine rotation in the roll and yaw planes. CONCLUSIONS: More caution and an additional safety margins are required when tracking a single fiducial marker.

Clinical log data analysis for assessing the accuracy of the CyberKnife fiducial-free lung tumor tracking system.

PURPOSE: The CyberKnife Xsight Lung Tracking (XLT) and 1-View tracking systems can synchronize beam targeting to a visible lung tumor with respiratory motion during irradiation without requiring internal fiducial markers. The systems use a correlation model that relates external marker positions to tumor positions as well as a prediction model that predicts the target's future position. In this study, the correlation and prediction model uncertainties related to the CyberKnife fiducial-free tumor tracking system were evaluated using clinical log data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 211 fractions in 42 patients with lung tumors were analyzed. Log files produced by the CyberKnife Synchrony system were acquired after each treatment; the mean correlation and prediction errors for each patient were calculated. Additionally, we examined the tracking tumor-related parameters and analyzed the relationships between the model errors and tracking tumor-related parameters. RESULTS: The overall means ± standard deviations (SDs) of the correlation errors were 0.70 ± 0.43 mm, 0.36 ± 0.16 mm, 0.44 ± 0.22 mm, and 0.95 ± 0.43 mm for the superoinferior (SI), left-right (LR), anteroposterior (AP), and radial directions, respectively. The overall means ± SDs of the prediction errors were 0.13 ± 0.11 mm, 0.03 ± 0.02 mm, 0.03 ± 0.02 mm, and 0.14 ± 0.11 mm for the SI, LR, AP, and radial directions, respectively. There were no significant differences in these errors between the XLT and 1-View tracking methods. The tumor motion amplitude was moderately associated with the correlation error and strongly related to the prediction error in the SI and radial directions. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical log data analysis can be used to determine the necessary margin sizes in treatment plans to compensate for correlation and prediction errors in the CyberKnife fiducial-free lung tumor tracking system. The tumor motion amplitude may facilitate margin determination.

Polarity correction factor for flattening filter free photon beams in several cylindrical ionization chambers.

In this study, we aimed to compare the polarity correction factor in ionization chambers for flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams and flattening filter (FF) beams. Measurements were performed with both 6 and 10 MV FFF and FF beams. Five commercial ionization chambers were evaluated: PTW TN30013; IBA Dosimetry CC01, CC04, and CC13; and Exradin A12S. Except for the CC01 ionization chamber, the other four chambers showed less than a 0.3 % difference in the polarity effect between the FFF and the FF beams. The CC01 chamber showed a strong field-size-dependence, unlike the other chambers. The polarity effect for all chambers with FFF beams did not change with the dose rate. Except in the case of the CC01 chamber, the difference in the polarity effect between FFF and FF beams was not significant.