Use of the BrainLAB ExacTrac X-Ray 6D System in Image-Guided Radiotherapy

A dataset range of isocenter congruency verification tests have been examined from a statistical perspective for the purpose of establishing tolerance levels that are meaningful, based on the fundamental limitation of linear accelerator isocentricity and the demands of a high‐precision stereotactic radiosurgery program. Using a laser‐defined isocenter, a total of 149 individual isocenter congruency tests were examined with recorded values for ideal spatial corrections to the isocenter test tool. These spatial corrections were determined from radiation exposures recorded on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) at various gantry, collimator, and treatment couch combinations. The limitations of establishing an ideal isocenter were quantified from each variable which contributed to uncertainty in isocenter definition. Individual contributors to uncertainty, specifically, daily positioning setup errors, gantry sag, multileaf collimator (MLC) offset, and couch walkout, were isolated from isocenter congruency measurements to determine a clinically meaningful isocenter measurement. Variations in positioning of the test tool constituted, on average, 0.38 mm magnitude of correction. Gantry sag and MLC offset contributed 0.4 and 0.16 mm, respectively. Couch walkout had an average degrading effect to isocenter of 0.72 mm. Considering the magnitude of uncertainty contributed by each uncertainty variable and the nature of their combination, an appropriate schedule action and immediate action level were determined for use in analyzing daily isocenter congruency test results in a stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program. The recommendations of this study for this linear accelerator include a schedule action level of 1.25 mm and an immediate action level of 1.50 mm, requiring prompt correction response from clinical medical physicists before SRS or stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) is administered. These absolute values were derived from considering relative data from a specific linear accelerator and, therefore, represent a means by which a numerical quantity can be used as a test threshold with relative specificity to a particular linear accelerator.PACS number: 87.53Ly, 29.20.Ej, 87.56.Fc

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying isocenter measurements to establish clinically meaningful thresholds

Denton

Shields

Howe

et al. 2015

“…CBCT is available on most modern linacs and used for setup verification because of its capability to acquire volumetric images 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . In‐room orthogonal X‐ray systems, such as the Brainlab ExacTrac X‐ray 6D system (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany), are common add‐ons that allow for 6D setup verification and corrections prior to and during treatment 7 , 8 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved setup and positioning accuracy using a three‐point customized cushion/mask/bite‐block immobilization system for stereotactic reirradiation of head and neck cancer

Wang

Tung

et al. 2016

The purpose of this study was to investigate the setup and positioning uncertainty of a custom cushion/mask/bite‐block (CMB) immobilization system and determine PTV margin for image‐guided head and neck stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (HN‐SABR). We analyzed 105 treatment sessions among 21 patients treated with HN‐SABR for recurrent head and neck cancers using a custom CMB immobilization system. Initial patient setup was performed using the ExacTrac infrared (IR) tracking system and initial setup errors were based on comparison of ExacTrac IR tracking system to corrected online ExacTrac X‐rays images registered to treatment plans. Residual setup errors were determined using repeat verification X‐ray. The online ExacTrac corrections were compared to cone‐beam CT (CBCT) before treatment to assess agreement. Intrafractional positioning errors were determined using prebeam X‐rays. The systematic and random errors were analyzed. The initial translational setup errors were −0.8±1.3 mm, −0.8±1.6 mm, and 0.3±1.9 mm in AP, CC, and LR directions, respectively, with a three‐dimensional (3D) vector of 2.7±1.4 mm. The initial rotational errors were up to 2.4° if 6D couch is not available. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac X‐ray images to within 2 mm and 2.5°. The intrafractional uncertainties were 0.1±0.6 mm, 0.1±0.6 mm, and 0.2±0.5 mm in AP, CC, and LR directions, respectively, and 0.0∘±0.5°, 0.0∘±0.6°, and −0.1∘±0.4∘ in yaw, roll, and pitch direction, respectively. The translational vector was 0.9±0.6 mm. The calculated PTV margins normalmPTVfalse(90,95false) were within 1.6 mm when using image guidance for online setup correction. The use of image guidance for online setup correction, in combination with our customized CMB device, highly restricted target motion during treatments and provided robust immobilization to ensure minimum dose of 95% to target volume with 2.0 mm PTV margin for HN‐SABR.PACS number(s): 87.55.ne

“…Prostate position during treatment can be monitored using a variety of methods, including megavoltage (MV) imaging,1 ultrasound,2 Calypso electromagnetic guidance,3 the BrainLAB ExacTrac x‐ray system,4 the Cyberknife platform,5, 6, 7 and Navotek radioactive fiducials 8. Adjustments to either the patient or the beam position can then be made during treatment to correct for the motion observed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical note: TROG 15.01 SPARK trial multi‐institutional imaging dose measurement

Legge

Greer

Keall

et al. 2017

PurposeThe Trans‐Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 15.01 Stereotactic Prostate Adaptive Radiotherapy utilizing Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (SPARK) trial is a multicenter trial using Kilovoltage Intrafraction Monitoring (KIM) to monitor prostate position during the delivery of prostate radiation therapy. KIM increases the accuracy of prostate radiation therapy treatments and allows for hypofractionation. However, an additional imaging dose is delivered to the patient. A standardized procedure to determine the imaging dose per frame delivered using KIM was developed and applied at four radiation therapy centers on three different types of linear accelerator.MethodsDose per frame for kilovoltage imaging in fluoroscopy mode was measured in air at isocenter using an ion chamber. Beam quality and dose were determined for a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator, a Varian Trilogy, four Varian Truebeams and one Elekta Synergy at four different radiation therapy centers. The imaging parameters used on the Varian machines were 125 kV, 80 mA, and 13 ms. The Elekta machine was measured at 120 kV, 80 mA, and 12 ms. Absorbed doses to the skin and the prostate for a typical SBRT prostate treatment length were estimated according to the IPEMB protocol.ResultsThe average dose per kV frame to the skin was 0.24 ± 0.03 mGy. The average estimated absorbed dose to the prostate for all five treatment fractions across all machines measured was 39.9 ± 2.6 mGy for 1 Hz imaging, 199.7 ± 13.2 mGy for 5 Hz imaging and 439.3 ± 29.0 mGy for 11 Hz imaging.ConclusionsAll machines measured agreed to within 20%. Additional dose to the prostate from using KIM is at most 1.3% of the prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions delivered during the trial.