Assessment of the accuracy of truebeam intrafraction motion review (IMR) system for prostate treatment guidance.
Dose measurement
Intrafraction motion monitoring
Prostate cancer
Journal
Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine
ISSN: 1879-5447
Titre abrégé: Australas Phys Eng Sci Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8208130
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
07
10
2018
accepted:
30
04
2019
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
16
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intrafraction motion review (IMR), a real-time 2D, motion management feature of the Varian Truebeam™ incorporates triggered imaging, automatic fiducial marker detection and automatic beam hold. With the increasing adoption of high dose per fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) this system provides a potential means to ensure treatment accuracy. The goal of this study was therefore to investigate and quantify key performance characteristics of IMR for prostate treatment guidance. Phantom experiments were performed with a custom Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Inc (CIRS) pelvis phantom with implanted gold seeds and the Hexamotion™ 5D motion platform. The system accuracy was assessed statically and under typical prostate motion trajectories. The IMR functionality and marker detectability was tested under different anatomical conditions and with different imaging acquisition modes. Imaging dose for triggered imaging modes was determined using an ionisation chamber based on IPEMB dose calibration protocol for kV energies. For zero displacement, the IMR demonstrated submillimeter agreement with the known position. Similarly, dynamic motion differences between the IMR reported position and 2D trajectory displacement were within 1 mm. Static displacement in the anterior direction was reported by IMR as sinusoidal motion on the x-axis (kV angle). The 2D nature of IMR limits the ability to detect motion out of the plane of the kV image detector. Using typical clinical imaging settings, imaging dose determined at the patient surface was 2.58 mGy/frame and the corresponding IMR displayed dose was 2.63 mGy/frame. The methodology used was able to quantify the accuracy of the IMR system. The IMR was able to accurately and consistently report fiducial positions within the limitations inherent of a 2D system. IMR is fully integrated with the Truebeam system with an easy to use and efficient workflow and is clinically beneficial especially within the context of SBRT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31087231
doi: 10.1007/s13246-019-00760-7
pii: 10.1007/s13246-019-00760-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM