Gamma Knife
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
/ methods
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiosurgery
/ methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Workflow
CBCT
Gamma Knife
frame-based
icon
radiosurgery workflow
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2019
revised:
16
08
2019
accepted:
15
09
2019
pubmed:
7
10
2019
medline:
14
4
2020
entrez:
7
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of stereotactic localization in Gamma Knife treatment planning: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or fiducial. While the fiducial method is the traditional method of localization, CBCT is now available for use with the Gamma Knife Icon. This study seeks to determine whether a difference exists between the two methods and then whether one is better than the other regarding accuracy and workflow optimization. Cone beam computed tomography was used to define stereotactic space around the Elekta Film Pinprick phantom and then treated with film in place. The same phantom was offset known amounts from center and then imaged with CBCT and registered with the reference CBCT image to determine if measured offsets matched those known. Ten frameless and 10 frame-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to CBCT patient fusions were retrospectively evaluated using the TG-132 TRE method. The stereotactic coordinates defined by CBCT and traditional fiducials were compared on the Elekta 8 cm Ball phantom, an anthropomorphic phantom, and actual patient data. Offsets were introduced to the anthropomorphic phantom in the stereotactic frame and CBCT's ability to detect those offsets was determined. Cone beam computed tomography defines stereotactic space well within the established limits of the mechanical alignment system. The CBCT to CBCT registration can detect offsets accurately to within 0.1 mm and 0.5°. In all cases, some disagreement existed between fiducial localization and that of CBCT which in some cases was small, but also was as high as 0.43 mm in the phantom domain and as much as 1.54 mm in actual patients. Cone beam computed tomography demonstrates consistent accuracy in defining stereotactic space. Since both localization methods do not agree with each other consistently, the more reliable method must be identified. Cone beam computed tomography can accurately determine offsets occurring within stereotactic space that would be nondiscernible utilizing the fiducial method and seems to be more reliable. Using CBCT localization offers the opportunity to streamline workflow both from a patient and clinic perspective and also shows patient position immediately prior to treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31587520
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12745
pmc: PMC6839378
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
95-103Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997 Apr;16(2):187-98
pubmed: 9101328
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 May 08;17(3):75-89
pubmed: 27167264
Med Phys. 2018 Jun 29;:null
pubmed: 29959780
Phys Med. 2018 Aug;52:93-97
pubmed: 30139616
J Neurosurg. 2008 Dec;109 Suppl:21-4
pubmed: 19123884
Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031704
pubmed: 23464299
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 May;20(5):27-36
pubmed: 30950167
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2005 Summer;6(3):133-42
pubmed: 16143798
Med Phys. 2007 Apr;34(4):1487-95
pubmed: 17500479
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011 Nov;153(11):2265-70
pubmed: 21681639
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Oct;156(10):1929-35
pubmed: 25027278
J Radiat Res. 2014 Sep;55(5):924-33
pubmed: 24781505
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Oct;81(1):25-32
pubmed: 17005278
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Dec;16(6):1120-1129
pubmed: 29332453
J Neurosurg. 1995 May;82(5):772-9
pubmed: 7714601
J Radiosurg SBRT. 2018;5(4):315-322
pubmed: 30538892
Med Phys. 2008 Nov;35(11):5110-4
pubmed: 19070245
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Oct 7;61(19):6993-7011
pubmed: 27648985
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jul;19(4):148-154
pubmed: 29862671
J Neurosurg. 2014 Dec;121 Suppl:2-15
pubmed: 25587587
Med Phys. 2017 Feb;44(2):355-363
pubmed: 28133748
Med Phys. 2002 Apr;29(4):561-8
pubmed: 11991128