A comparison of several modulated radiotherapy techniques for head and neck cancer and dosimetric validation of VMAT.

PURPOSE: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the potential to shorten treatment times for fluence modulated radiotherapy. We compared dose distributions of VMAT, step-and-shoot IMRT and serial tomotherapy for typical head and neck (H&N) planning target volumes (PTV) with sparing of one parotid, a complex paradigm and a situation often encountered in H&N radiotherapy. Finally, we validated the dosimetric accuracy of VMAT delivery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on CT datasets of 10 patients treated for H&N cancer (PTV1:60 Gy/PTV2:56 Gy) with IMRT (7/9 fields), serial tomotherapy (MIMiC) and VMAT were compared with regard to plan quality and treatment efficiency. Plan quality was assessed by calculating homogeneity/conformity index (HI/CI), mean dose to parotid and brain stem and the maximum dose to the spinal cord. For plan efficiency evaluation, total treatment time (TTT) and number of monitor units (MU) were considered. A dosimetric evaluation of VMAT was performed using radiosensitive film, ion chamber and 2D-array. RESULTS: For MIMiC/IMRT(7F)/IMRT(9F)/VMAT, mean CI was 1.98/2.23/2.23/1.82, HI(PTV1) was 1.12/1.20/1.20/1.11 and HI(PTV2) was 1.11/1.15/1.13/1.12. Mean doses to the shielded parotid were 19.5 Gy/14.1 Gy/13.9 Gy/14.9 Gy and the spinal cord received maximum doses of 43.6 Gy/40.8 Gy/41.6 Gy/42.6 Gy. The mean MU's were 2551/945/925/521 and the mean TTT was 12.8 min/7.6 min/8.5 min/4.32 min. The ion chamber measurements showed an absolute deviation of 0.08 ± 1.10% and 98.45 ± 3.25% pixels passed γ-analyses for 3%/3mm and 99.95 ± 0.09% for 5%/5mm for films. 2D-array measurements reported an agreement for 3%/3mm of 95.65 ± 2.47%-98.33 ± 0.65% and for 5%/5mm 99.79 ± 0.24%-99.92 ± 0.09% depending on the measurement protocol. CONCLUSION: All treatment paradigms produced plans of excellent quality and dosimetric accuracy with IMRT providing best OAR sparing and VMAT being the most efficient treatment option in our comparison of treatment plans with high complexity.

Reirradiation of spinal column metastases: comparison of several treatment techniques and dosimetric validation for the use of VMAT.

BACKGROUND: For reirradiation of spinal column metastases, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces the dose to the spinal cord, while allowing longer treatment times. We analyzed the potential of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to reduce treatment time and number of monitor units (MU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In CT datasets of 9 patients with spinal column metastases, the planned target volume (PTV) encompassed the macroscopic tumor including the spinal cord or medullary cone, respectively. The prescribed dose for the target was 40 Gy, but median spinal cord dose was intended to be < 26 Gy. We compared a posterior (3D-PA) static field technique, a two-field wedge technique (3D-wedge) and 5-/7-beam IMRT with VMAT. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI40), dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters, treatments delivery time (T), and MU were analyzed. Dosimetry was validated with EDR2-film/ionization chambers. RESULTS: PTV coverage was insufficient for 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) when spinal cord tolerance was respected. The IMRT approach provided excellent results but has the longest treatment time. VMAT produced dose distributions similar to IMRT with shorter treatment times (VMAT: mean 4:49 min; IMRT: mean 6:50 min) and fewer MU (VMAT: 785; IMRT: 860). Reduced conformity and increased homogeneity for VMAT when compared to IMRT were observed. An absolute deviation between measured and calculated dose of +0.70 ± 3.69% was recorded. γ-Index analysis showed an agreement of 91.33 ± 3.53% for the 5%/5 mm criteria. CONCLUSION: For this paradigm, VMAT produces high quality treatment plans with homogeneity/conformity similar to static IMRT, shorter treatment times, and fewer MU. Verification measurements showed good agreement between calculation and delivered dose, leading to clinical implementation.

Clinical implementation of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with ERGO++.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the potential to deliver dose distributions comparable to the established intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for a multitude of target paradigms. Prior to implementing VMAT into their clinical routine in December 2008, the authors evaluated the dose calculation/delivery accuracy of 24 sample VMAT plans (prostate and anal cancer target paradigms) with film and ionization dosimetry. After the start of the clinical program, in vivo measurements with a rectal probe were performed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The VMAT plans were generated by the treatment-planning system (TPS) ERGO++ (Elekta, Crawley, UK) and transferred to a phantom. Film dosimetry was performed with Kodak EDR2 films, and evaluated with dose profiles and gamma-index analysis. Appropriate ionization chambers were used for absolute dose measurements in the phantom and for in vivo measurements. The ionization chamber was used with localization of the measurement volume based on positioning cone-beam computed tomography. RESULTS: Plans were transferred from ERGO++ to the record and verify (R&V) system/linear accelerator (linac). The absolute dose deviations recorded with the ionization chamber were 1.74% +/- 1.62% across both indications. The gamma-index analysis of the film dosimetry showed no deviation > 3%/3 mm in the high-dose region. On in vivo measurements, a deviation between calculation and measurement of 2.09% +/- 2.4% was recorded, when the chamber was successfully positioned in the high-dose region. CONCLUSION: VMAT plans can be planned and treated reproducibly in high quality after the commissioning of the complete delivery chain consisting of TPS, R&V system and linac. The results of the individual plan verification meet the commonly accepted requirements. The first in vivo measurements confirm the reproducible precision of the delivered dose during clinical treatments.

A new strategy for online adaptive prostate radiotherapy based on cone-beam CT.

PURPOSE: Interfractional organ motion and patient positioning errors during prostate radiotherapy can have deleterious clinical consequences. It has become clinical practice to re-position the patient with image-guided translational position correction before each treatment to compensate for those errors. However, tilt errors can only be corrected with table corrections in six degrees of freedom or "full" adaptive treatment planning strategies. Organ shape deformations can only be corrected by "full" plan adaptation. This study evaluates the potential of instant treatment plan adaptation (fast isodose line adaptation with real-time dose manipulating tools) based on cone-beam CT (CBCT) to further improve treatment quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using in-house software, CBCTs were modified to approximate a correct density calibration. To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy, dose distributions based on CBCTs were compared with dose distributions calculated on conventional planning CTs (PCT) for four datasets (one inhomogeneous phantom, three patient datasets). To determine the potential dosimetric benefit of a "full" plan adaptation over translational position correction, dose distributions were re-optimized using graphical "online" dose modification tools for three additional patients' CT-datasets with a substantially distended rectum while the original plans have been created with an empty rectum (single treatment fraction estimates). RESULTS: Absolute dose deviations of up to 51% in comparison to the PCT were observed when uncorrected CBCTs were used for replanning. After density calibration of the CBCTs, 97% of the dose deviations were

A fast radiotherapy paradigm for anal cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) volumes for anal cancer are large and of moderate complexity when organs at risk (OAR) such as testis, small bowel and bladder are at least partially to be shielded. Volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy (VMAT) might provide OAR-shielding comparable to step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for this tumor entity with better treatment efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on treatment planning CTs of 8 patients, we compared dose distributions, comformality index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), number of monitor units (MU) and treatment time (TTT) for plans generated for VMAT, 3D-CRT and step-and-shoot-IMRT (optimized based on Pencil Beam (PB) or Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation) for typical anal cancer planning target volumes (PTV) including inguinal lymph nodes as usually treated during the first phase (0-36 Gy) of a shrinking field regimen. RESULTS: With values of 1.33 +/- 0.21/1.26 +/- 0.05/1.3 +/- 0.02 and 1.39 +/- 0.09, the CI's for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PB-Hyperion/MC-Hyperion) and VMAT are better than for 3D-CRT with 2.00 +/- 0.16. The HI's for the prescribed dose (HI36) for 3D-CRT were 1.06 +/- 0.01 and 1.11 +/- 0.02 for VMAT, respectively and 1.15 +/- 0.02/1.10 +/- 0.02/1.11 +/- 0.08 for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PB-Hyperion/MC-Hyperion). Mean TTT and MU's for 3D-CRT is 220s/225 +/- 11MU and for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PB-Hyperion/MC-Hyperion) is 575s/1260 +/- 172MU, 570s/477 +/- 84MU and 610s748 +/- 193MU while TTT and MU for two-arc-VMAT is 290s/268 +/- 19MU. CONCLUSION: VMAT provides treatment plans with high conformity and homogeneity equivalent to step-and-shoot-IMRT for this mono-concave treatment volume. Short treatment delivery time and low primary MU are the most important advantages.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a complex treatment strategy for intensity-modulated radiation therapy, may increase treatment efficiency and has recently been established clinically. This analysis compares VMAT against established IMRT and 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) delivery techniques. METHODS: Based on CT datasets of 9 patients treated for prostate cancer step-and-shoot IMRT, serial tomotherapy (MIMiC), 3D-CRT and VMAT were compared with regard to plan quality and treatment efficiency. Two VMAT approaches (one rotation (VMAT1x) and one rotation plus a second 200 degrees rotation (VMAT2x)) were calculated for the plan comparison. Plan quality was assessed by calculating homogeneity and conformity index (HI and CI), dose to normal tissue (non-target) and D(95%) (dose encompassing 95% of the target volume). For plan efficiency evaluation, treatment time and number of monitor units (MU) were considered. RESULTS: For MIMiC/IMRT(MLC)/VMAT2x/VMAT1x/3D-CRT, mean CI was 1.5/1.23/1.45/1.51/1.46 and HI was 1.19/1.1/1.09/1.11/1.04. For a prescribed dose of 76 Gy, mean doses to organs-at-risk (OAR) were 50.69 Gy/53.99 Gy/60.29 Gy/61.59 Gy/66.33 Gy for the anterior half of the rectum and 31.85 Gy/34.89 Gy/38.75 Gy/38.57 Gy/55.43 Gy for the posterior rectum. Volumes of non-target normal tissue receiving > or =70% of prescribed dose (53 Gy) were 337 ml/284 ml/482 ml/505 ml/414 ml, for > or =50% (38 Gy) 869 ml/933 ml/1155 ml/1231 ml/1993 ml and for > or =30% (23 Gy) 2819 ml/3414 ml/3340 ml/3438 ml /3061 ml. D(95%) was 69.79 Gy/70.51 Gy/71,7 Gy/71.59 Gy/73.42 Gy. Mean treatment time was 12 min/6 min/3.7 min/1.8 min/2.5 min. CONCLUSION: All approaches yield treatment plans of improved quality when compared to 3D-conformal treatments, with serial tomotherapy providing best OAR sparing and VMAT being the most efficient treatment option in our comparison. Plans which were calculated with 3D-CRT provided good target coverage but resulted in higher dose to the rectum.

Optimization of the gafchromic EBT protocol for IMRT QA.

Quality assurance of external beam (radio)therapy (EBT) requires tools with specific characteristics. A radiochromic film dubbed "Gafchromic EBT" (G-EBT) that is particularly suited for external beam therapy because of its features was introduced in 2004. Its characteristics, especially the high spatial resolution, make it suitable for measurement of dose distributions in radiotherapy, especially intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). While several aspects of the film characteristics have been previously reported separately, we present a comprehensive evaluation centered on practical IMRT verification, leading to an optimized protocol. Therefore the constancy within one batch, the relationship between optical density (OD) and dose (dose range between 1.4 Gy and 8.4 Gy) and the dose rate dependence for four dose rates (55, 108, 217, 441 MU/min) were investigated. In addition to these characteristics, energy dependence between two energies (50kV and 6 MV), tissue equivalency, post irradiation coloration over one month, pressure and temperature sensitivity were evaluated. We then optimized the protocol using the G-EBT films, in combination with an EPSON-Expression 1680 pro flatbed scanner, for IMRT QA, while either striving to keep the compound error as small as possible or trying to reduce evaluation time. As a basis for this protocol optimization, the characteristics of the scanner (such as inhomogeneity of the scanning field) and its software (such as consequences of extracting only the red color channel) had to be determined first. The interaction of film and scanner (variation of the OD depending on the scanning direction or the scanning resolution) was assessed as well. Using the optimized protocol for IMRT QA, the compound error could be reduced to approximately 2% for a quality-driven approach and maximum 5.5% for an approach attempting to reduce procedure time. While the quality-driven approach provides appropriate accuracy for individual patient QA, the procedure-time driven approach can only be used for preliminary measurements.

[Serial tomotherapy vs. MLC-IMRT (multileaf collimator intensity modulated radiotherapy) for simultaneous boost treatment large intracerebral lesions]. / Serielle Tomotherapie vs. MLC-IMRT (Multileaf Collimator Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy) für die simultane Boostbestrahlung mehrerer grösserer Hirnfiliae.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest that a radiosurgery boost treatment for up to three brain metastases in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is beneficial. Sequential treatment of multiple metastatic lesions is time-consuming and optimal normal tissue sparing is not trivial for larger metastases when separate plans are created and are only superimposed afterwards. Sequential Tomotherapy (see image I) with noncoplanar arcs and Multi-field IMRT may streamline the process and enable easy simultaneous treatment. We compared plans for 2-3 intracerebral targets calculated with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) based on treatment with MLC or sequential Tomotherapy using the Peacock-System (see image II). Treatment time was not to exceed 90 min on a linac with standard dose rate. MIMiC plans without treatment-time restrictions were created as a benchmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Calculations are based on a Siemens KD2 linac with a dose rate of 200 MU/min. Step-and-Shoot IMRT is performed with a standard MLC (2 x 29 leaves, 1 cm), serial Tomotherapy with the Multivane-Collimator MIMiC (NOMOS Inc. USA) (see image II). Treatment plans are created with Corvus 5.0. To create plans with good conformity we chose a noncoplanar beam- and arc geometry for each approach (IMRT 4-, MIMiC 5-couch angles). The benchmark MIMiC plans with maximally steep dose gradients had 9 couch angles. For plan comparison reasons, 10 Gy were prescribed to 90% of the PTV. Steepness of dose gradients, homogeneity and conformity were assessed by the following parameters: Volume encompassed by certain isodoses outside the target as well as homogeneity and conformity as indicated by Homogeneity- and Conformity-Index. RESULTS: Plans without treatment-time restrictions had slightest dose to organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and least Conformity-index. MIMiC- and MLC-IMRT based plans can be treated within the intended period of 90 min, all plans met the required dose (see Table 2). MLC based plans resulted in higher dose to organs at risk (OAR) (see table 1) and dose to tissue outside the targets (see table 3), as indicated by a higher CI (see image III). The HI was similar for all calculated plans (see image IV). DISCUSSION: When treatment plans resulting in a similar treatment time were compared, serial Tomotherapy showed minor advantages over MLC based IMRT with regard to conformity, OAR sparing, and steepness of dose gradients. Both methods are inferior to serial Tomotherapy with ideal plan quality disregarding treatment efficiency. Treating multiple metastases in less than 1 h would therefore be possible on a LINAC with high dose rate and bidirectional rotation with minor compromises on gradient steepness.

Phantom measurements to quantify the accuracy of a commercially available cone-beam CT gray-value matching algorithm using multiple Fiducials.

PURPOSE: : To assess the accuracy of the gray-value matching algorithm (XVI, Elekta) when multiple iodine-125 ((125)I) seeds are used as fiducials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: : A phantom, consisting of a plastic box filled with water-dense material containing about 50 dummy seeds, developed primarily as a manual-skill trainer for (125)I seed implantation was used (Figure 1). The phantom was scanned first with a planning CT (PCT) at a slice thickness of 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm and with cone-beam CT (CBCT) to be associated with each reference PCT. Matching was performed with the XVI gray-value algorithm. The isocenter was marked with external markers at PCT. After matching, residual error was determined as the difference between planned isocenter and the isocenter that would have been treated based on the matching process. The procedure was performed twice, once without any manipulation (Figure 2) and once with deformation of the seed-bearing dummy prostate by inserting a plug into the phantom aperture that mimics the rectum (Figure 3). RESULTS: : For the undeformed phantom the maximal residual error regarding the isocenter after gray-value matching around the seed-bearing region was 0.0 mm in x, y and z directions in case of the PCT with 1 mm thickness. The range of residual error was 0-0.4 mm in case of the PCT with 3 mm and 0-0.8 mm in x, y and z directions in case of 5 mm slice thickness, respectively (Figure 4). For the deformed phantom similar results were obtained (maximum error: 1.1 mm). CONCLUSION: : The residual error after seed-based matching regarding the phantom isocenter was < 1.1 mm in all cases and for the clinical situation (3 mm slice thickness) always < 0.4 mm. The algorithm is therefore appropriate for precision radiotherapy.

Accuracy of ultrasound-based (BAT) prostate-repositioning: a three-dimensional on-line fiducial-based assessment with cone-beam computed tomography.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of ultrasound-based repositioning (BAT) before prostate radiation with fiducial-based three-dimensional matching with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-four positionings in 8 patients with 125I seeds/intraprostatic calcifications as fiducials were evaluated. Patients were initially positioned according to skin marks and after this according to bony structures based on CBCT. Prostate position correction was then performed with BAT. Residual error after repositioning based on skin marks, bony anatomy, and BAT was estimated by a second CBCT based on user-independent automatic fiducial registration. RESULTS: Overall mean value (MV+/-SD) residual error after BAT based on fiducial registration by CBCT was 0.7+/-1.7 mm in x (group systematic error [M]=0.5 mm; SD of systematic error [Sigma]=0.8 mm; SD of random error [sigma]=1.4 mm), 0.9+/-3.3 mm in y (M=0.5 mm, Sigma=2.2 mm, sigma=2.8 mm), and -1.7+/-3.4 mm in z (M=-1.7 mm, Sigma=2.3 mm, sigma=3.0 mm) directions, whereas residual error relative to positioning based on skin marks was 2.1+/-4.6 mm in x (M=2.6 mm, Sigma=3.3 mm, sigma=3.9 mm), -4.8+/-8.5 mm in y (M=-4.4 mm, Sigma=3.7 mm, sigma=6.7 mm), and -5.2+/-3.6 mm in z (M=-4.8 mm, Sigma=1.7 mm, sigma=3.5 mm) directions and relative to positioning based on bony anatomy was 0+/-1.8 mm in x (M=0.2 mm, Sigma=0.9 mm, sigma=1.1 mm), -3.5+/-6.8 mm in y (M=-3.0 mm, Sigma=1.8 mm, sigma=3.7 mm), and -1.9+/-5.2 mm in z (M=-2.0 mm, Sigma=1.3 mm, sigma=4.0 mm) directions. CONCLUSIONS: BAT improved the daily repositioning accuracy over skin marks or even bony anatomy. The results obtained with BAT are within the precision of extracranial stereotactic procedures and represent values that can be achieved with several users with different education levels. If sonographic visibility is insufficient, CBCT or kV/MV portal imaging with implanted fiducials are recommended.

Evaluation of calculation algorithms implemented in different commercial planning systems on an anthropomorphic breast phantom using film dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation algorithms of different planning systems for postoperative tangential radiotherapy in breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: On a CT dataset of an anthropomorphic phantom, a structure set of the left lung, clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume, heart, and external contour were delineated. The dataset was processed by six radiation oncology centers participating in this multicenter dosimetry project. Conventional plans with two tangential wedged fields were generated in MasterPlan, Pinnacle, Eclipse, TMS, and PrecisePLAN. Plan calculations were done using the beam data of local linacs. The dose distributions were verified under local conditions with Gafchromic-EBT films. RESULTS: In all planning systems, deviations between calculation and measurement were around +/-3% in the CTV in the measured plane. Only small areas with deviations of +/-5% were detected. Pencil-beam (PB) calculations overestimated the dose inside the lung by up to 23%. Collapsed cone (CC) underestimated the lung dose by up to 6%. CONCLUSION: CC calculates the dose distribution more accurately than PB. Inside regions with electron disequilibrium, however, the dose is slightly underestimated.

On the performances of different IMRT Treatment Planning Systems for selected paediatric cases.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the performance of seven different TPS (Treatment Planning Systems: Corvus, Eclipse, Hyperion, KonRad, Oncentra Masterplan, Pinnacle and PrecisePLAN) when intensity modulated (IMRT) plans are designed for paediatric tumours. METHODS: Datasets (CT images and volumes of interest) of four patients were used to design IMRT plans. The tumour types were: one extraosseous, intrathoracic Ewing Sarcoma; one mediastinal Rhabdomyosarcoma; one metastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma of the anus; one Wilm's tumour of the left kidney with multiple liver metastases. Prescribed doses ranged from 18 to 54.4 Gy. To minimise variability, the same beam geometry and clinical goals were imposed on all systems for every patient. Results were analysed in terms of dose distributions and dose volume histograms. RESULTS: For all patients, IMRT plans lead to acceptable treatments in terms of conformal avoidance since most of the dose objectives for Organs At Risk (OARs) were met, and the Conformity Index (averaged over all TPS and patients) ranged from 1.14 to 1.58 on primary target volumes and from 1.07 to 1.37 on boost volumes. The healthy tissue involvement was measured in terms of several parameters, and the average mean dose ranged from 4.6 to 13.7 Gy. A global scoring method was developed to evaluate plans according to their degree of success in meeting dose objectives (lower scores are better than higher ones). For OARs the range of scores was between 0.75 +/- 0.15 (Eclipse) to 0.92 +/- 0.18 (Pinnacle(3) with physical optimisation). For target volumes, the score ranged from 0.05 +/- 0.05 (Pinnacle(3) with physical optimisation) to 0.16 +/- 0.07 (Corvus). CONCLUSION: A set of complex paediatric cases presented a variety of individual treatment planning challenges. Despite the large spread of results, inverse planning systems offer promising results for IMRT delivery, hence widening the treatment strategies for this very sensitive class of patients.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with different combinations of treatment-planning systems and linacs: issues and how to detect them.

PURPOSE: To compare different combinations of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) system components with regard to quality assurance (QA), especially robustness against malfunctions and dosimetry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three different treatment-planning systems (TPS), two types of linacs and three multileaf collimator (MLC) types were compared: commissioning procedures were performed for the combination of the TPS Corvus 5.0 (Nomos) and KonRad v2.1.3 (Siemens OCS) with the linacs KD2 (Siemens) and Synergy (Elekta). For PrecisePLAN 2.03 (Elekta) measurements were performed for Elekta Synergy only. As record and verify (R&V) system Multi-Access v7 (IMPAC) was used. The use of the serial tomotherapy system Peacock (Nomos) was investigated in combination with the Siemens KD2 linac. RESULTS: In the comparison of calculated to measured dose, problems were encountered for the combination of KonRad and Elekta MLC as well as for the Peacock system. Multi-Access failed to assign the collimator angle correctly for plans with multiple collimator angles per beam. Communication problems of Multi-Access with both linacs were observed, resulting in incorrect recording of the treatment. All reported issues were addressed by the manufacturers. CONCLUSION: For the commissioning of IMRT systems, the whole chain from the TPS to the linac has to be investigated. Components that passed the commissioning in another clinical environment can have severe malfunctions when used in a new environment. Therefore, not only single components but the whole chain from planning to delivery has to be evaluated in commissioning and checked regularly for QA.

Evaluation of possible prostate displacement induced by pressure applied during transabdominal ultrasound image acquisition.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For accurate positioning of the prostate in external radiotherapy, transabdominal ultrasound localization and positioning systems are available. Reports have stated that probe pressure applied during image acquisition causes clinically relevant prostate displacement. The aim of this study was to investigate the prostate displacement due to the pressure applied during transabdominal ultrasound image acquisition with the BAT ultrasound system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For ten patients who had undergone iodine-125 seed implantation for brachytherapy of prostate cancer, X-ray simulations were performed before and during ultrasound image acquisition. The iodine seeds are visible on the X-ray images, representing the position of the prostate. The simulator's crosshair, indicating the isocenter, was used as reference coordinate system. For each patient the change in prostate position was calculated based on the seed positions during and after ultrasound examination. RESULTS: A maximum displacement of the prostate of 2.3 mm in anteroposterior and 1.9 mm in craniocaudal direction and a rotational change of up to 2.5 degrees were observed. If the system was not handled correctly and too much pressure was applied, a shift of the prostate of up to 10 mm could be induced. CONCLUSION: Compared to the prostate displacement due to changes in rectal filling, which according to Crook et al. can be as much as 1.7 cm, the maximum displacement of less than 0.3 cm caused by the probe pressure is negligible. However, proper education of the staff and preparation of the patient are essential for the safe use of the system.