Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer comparing kV imaging of fiducial markers with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

PURPOSE: To present our single-institution experience with image-guided radiotherapy comparing fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for daily localization of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From April 2007 to October 2008, 36 patients with prostate cancer received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with daily localization by use of implanted fiducials. Orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) portal imaging preceded all 1244 treatments. Cone-beam computed tomography images were also obtained before 286 treatments (23%). Shifts in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) dimensions were made from kV fiducial imaging. Cone-beam computed tomography shifts based on soft tissues were recorded. Shifts were compared by use of Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Mean and standard deviation of absolute differences were also compared. A difference of 5 mm or less was acceptable. Subsets including start date, body mass index, and prostate size were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 286 treatments, 81 (28%) resulted in a greater than 5.0-mm difference in one or more dimensions. Mean differences in the AP, SI, and LR dimensions were 3.4 ± 2.6 mm, 3.1 ± 2.7 mm, and 1.3 ± 1.6 mm, respectively. Most deviations occurred in the posterior (fiducials, 78%; CBCT, 59%), superior (79%, 61%), and left (57%, 63%) directions. Bland-Altman 95% confidence intervals were -4.0 to 9.3 mm for AP, -9.0 to 5.3 mm for SI, and -4.1 to 3.9 mm for LR. The percentages of shift agreements within ±5 mm were 72.4% for AP, 72.7% for SI, and 97.2% for LR. Correlation between imaging techniques was not altered by time, body mass index, or prostate size. CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam computed tomography and kV fiducial imaging are similar; however, more than one-fourth of CBCT and kV shifts differed enough to affect target coverage. This was even more pronounced with smaller margins (3 mm). Fiducial imaging requires less daily physician input, is less time-consuming, and is our preferred method for prostate image-guided radiotherapy.

A new geometric and mechanical verification device for medical LINACs.

The goal of quality assurance (QA) for a radiation oncology medical LINAC is to maintain an acceptable level of equipment performance and reliability. The increasing complexity of Radiation Oncology equipment and treatment techniques have led to increased demands on the work load of the medical physicist. Regular testing needs to be as efficient as possible. Generally, the QA tests, as recommended by the AAPM Task Group 40 for medical LINACs, can be grouped into two categories: dosimetry and mechanical checks. A new QA device has been developed that facilitates many of the daily and monthly mechanical QA checks. Its efficiency and speed is achieved through a set of QA tools that are mounted on a single platform, which is designed to fit into the accessory mount of the medical LINAC. Named Mini-GARD (MG), it verifies the accuracy of the digital readouts for gantry angles, collimator angles, and field sizes. It also tests crosshair position, the optical distance indicator (ODI), and patient setup laser alignment. It uses two calibrated digital levels for the gantry and collimator angle verification, an electronic tape measure for ODI verification, and a calibrated transparent projection scale for the remaining tests. This paper evaluates the stability and accuracy of the device in clinical tests over a period of a year. Results show that the MG is reliable and capable of measuring gantry and collimator angle constancy to +/-0.3 degrees, ODI constancy to +/-0.05 cm, and field size accuracies to +/-0.05 cm.