Geometric accuracy in patient positioning for stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors.
Accuracy in patient positioning
CBCT
ExacTrac
Image-guided radiotherapy
Intracranial tumors
Stereotactic Radiotherapy
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
06
01
2023
revised:
20
06
2023
accepted:
20
06
2023
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
18
9
2023
entrez:
18
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study determines and compares the geometric setup errors between stereoscopic x-ray and kilo-voltage cone beam CT (CBCT) in phantom tests on a linear accelerator (linac) for image-guided (IG) stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors. Additionally, dose-volume metrics in the target volumes of the setup errors of CBCT were evaluated. A Winston-Lutz- and an anthropomorphic phantom were used. The mean deviation and root mean square error (RMSE) of CBCT and stereoscopic x-ray were compared. Dose-volume metrics of the planning target volume (PTV) and gross target volume (GTV) for CBCT were calculated. The RMSEs in the tests with the Winston-Lutz-Phantom were 0.3 mm, 1.1 mm and 0.3 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray in the translational dimensions (right-left, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior). The RMSEs in the tests with the anthropomorphic phantom were 0.3 mm, 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray. The effects on dose-volume metrics of the setup errors of CBCT on the GTV were within 1 % for all considered dose values. The effects on the PTV were within 5 % for all considered dose values. Both IG systems provide high accuracy patient positioning within a submillimeter range. The phantom tests exposed a slightly higher accuracy of stereoscopic x-ray than CBCT. The comparison with other studies with a similar purpose emphasizes the importance of individual IG installation quality assurance.
Sections du résumé
Background/Purpose
UNASSIGNED
This study determines and compares the geometric setup errors between stereoscopic x-ray and kilo-voltage cone beam CT (CBCT) in phantom tests on a linear accelerator (linac) for image-guided (IG) stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors. Additionally, dose-volume metrics in the target volumes of the setup errors of CBCT were evaluated.
Materials/Methods
UNASSIGNED
A Winston-Lutz- and an anthropomorphic phantom were used. The mean deviation and root mean square error (RMSE) of CBCT and stereoscopic x-ray were compared. Dose-volume metrics of the planning target volume (PTV) and gross target volume (GTV) for CBCT were calculated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The RMSEs in the tests with the Winston-Lutz-Phantom were 0.3 mm, 1.1 mm and 0.3 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray in the translational dimensions (right-left, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior). The RMSEs in the tests with the anthropomorphic phantom were 0.3 mm, 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm for CBCT and 0.1 mm, 0,1 mm and <0.1 mm for stereoscopic x-ray. The effects on dose-volume metrics of the setup errors of CBCT on the GTV were within 1 % for all considered dose values. The effects on the PTV were within 5 % for all considered dose values.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both IG systems provide high accuracy patient positioning within a submillimeter range. The phantom tests exposed a slightly higher accuracy of stereoscopic x-ray than CBCT. The comparison with other studies with a similar purpose emphasizes the importance of individual IG installation quality assurance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37720460
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100461
pii: S2405-6316(23)00052-0
pmc: PMC10500024
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100461Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Feb 10;40(5):492-516
pubmed: 34932393
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jan 1;91(1):100-8
pubmed: 25442342
PLoS One. 2017 May 19;12(5):e0177798
pubmed: 28542254
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Dec 7;11(1):158
pubmed: 27927235
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Mar;23(3):e13518
pubmed: 34994101
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 May;196(5):421-443
pubmed: 32211939
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Nov 1;93(3):540-6
pubmed: 26460996
Neurosurgery. 2019 Jan 1;84(1):253-260
pubmed: 29554321
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jun;16(3):321-331
pubmed: 27582369
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Dec;93(3):602-8
pubmed: 19846229
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Jun 17;113(24):415-21
pubmed: 27380757
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Nov 17;16(1):221
pubmed: 34789300
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Jul;64(1):75-83
pubmed: 12208578
Lancet. 2004 May 22;363(9422):1665-72
pubmed: 15158627
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1627-35
pubmed: 21477937
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jun;14(3):305-14
pubmed: 25223323
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Nov 1;90(3):526-31
pubmed: 25304947
Phys Med. 2020 Dec;80:267-273
pubmed: 33221708
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 15;71(4):1261-71
pubmed: 18485614
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Sep 1;45(2):427-34
pubmed: 10487566
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Sep;18(5):10-21
pubmed: 28786239
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Apr;95(1):116-21
pubmed: 20122747
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Oct;20(10):84-91
pubmed: 31507075
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1715-27
pubmed: 18367799