Implementation and validation of a new fixation system for stereotactic radiation therapy: An analysis of patient immobilization.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiation therapy is an established treatment technique for intracranial malignancies. We evaluated a new intracranial immobilization system with an emphasis on determining the intrafraction motion and the correlation of this motion with treatment time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were immobilized using the trUpoint ARCH fixation system (CIVCO Medical Solutions). We collected data from 85 lesions in 73 patients treated between November 2011 and December 2013. Sixty-nine of 73 patients (95%) used the complete mask system; for the remaining 4 patients, the system had to be adapted. Patients were treated using volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiation therapy on a TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Fraction doses of 2-8 Gy were applied in 4-30 fractions. Daily cone beam computed tomography imaging was performed before the treatment and was matched to the reference computed tomography using a 6-degrees-of-freedom automatching procedure. Additionally, posttreatment cone beam computed tomography scans were performed to assess intrafraction motion for 67 patients (375 fractions). RESULTS: The average 3-dimensional setup error was 2.1 ± 2.9 mm. The mean pitch and roll was -0.1 ± 0.7° and 0.2 ± 0.7°. A total of 98.0% of the pitch values and 98.9% of the roll values were <1.5°. Mean intrafractional motion was 0.51 mm (±0.27) and mean treatment time was 10.1 minutes (±1.4). The maximum intrafractional motion was 2.0 mm in the longitudinal direction; 95% of the total shifts were <1.4 mm. The linear regression showed a weak but significant influence (R(2) = 0.26, P = .01) of the treatment time on the total intrafractional shift. CONCLUSIONS: The new intracranial immobilization system appears to be robust in terms of setup accuracy, intrafraction motion, and repositioning of the mask system.

PTV margin definition in hypofractionated IGRT of localized prostate cancer using cone beam CT and orthogonal image pairs with fiducial markers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate PTV margins for hypofractionated IGRT of prostate comparing kV/kV imaging or CBCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, 20 patients with low- (LR), intermediate- (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer were treated with VMAT in supine position with fiducial markers (FM), endorectal balloon (ERB) and full bladder. CBCT's and kV/kV imaging were performed before and additional CBCT's after treatment assessing intra-fraction motion. CTVP for 5 patients with LR and CTVPSV for 5 patients with IR/HR prostate cancer were contoured independently by 3 radiation oncologists using MRI. The van Hark formula (PTV margin =2.5Σ +0.7σ) was applied to calculate PTV margins of prostate/seminal vesicles (P/PSV) using CBCT or FM. RESULTS: 172 and 52 CBCTs before and after RT and 507 kV/kV images before RT were analysed. Differences between FM in CBCT or in planar kV image pairs were below 1 mm. Accounting for both random and systematic uncertainties anisotropic PTV margins were 5-8 mm for P (LR) and 6-11 mm for PSV (IR/HR). Random uncertainties like intra-fraction and inter-fraction (setup) uncertainties were of similar magnitude (0.9-1.4 mm). Largest uncertainty was introduced by CTV delineation (LR: 1-2 mm, IR/HR: 1.6-3.5 mm). Patient positioning using bone matching or ERB-matching resulted in larger PTV margins. CONCLUSIONS: For IGRT CBCT or kV/kV-image pairs with FM are interchangeable in respect of accuracy. Especially for hypofractionated RT, PTV margins can be kept in the range of 5 mm or below if stringent daily IGRT, ideally including prostate tracking, is applied. MR-based CTV delineation optimization is recommended.