Lateral Portal Images Research Articles

Lower limb immobilization device induced small setup errors in the radiotherapy.

The aim of this study was to design a lower limb immobilization device and investigate its clinical application in the radiotherapy of the lower limbs.Around 38 patients who underwent lower limb radiotherapy using the designed immobilization device were included in this study. The setup errors were calculated by comparison of the portal images and the simulator films or digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs).From all 38 patients accomplished the radiotherapy using this device, 178 anteroposterior portal images and 178 lateral portal images were used for the analysis of the positional accuracy. Significant differences were observed in the setup error of the head–foot direction compared with the left–right direction (t = 3.404, P = .002) and the anterior–posterior directions (t = 3.188, P = .003). No statistical differences were identified in the setup error in the left–right direction and anterior–posterior direction (t = 0.497, P = .622).The use of the in-house designed lower limb immobilization device allowed for relatively small setup errors. Furthermore, it showed satisfactory accuracy and repeatability.

Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for skull base tumors: analysis of treatment accuracy using a stereotactic mask fixation system

BackgroundTo assess the accuracy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) using a stereotactic mask fixation system.Patients and MethodsSixteen patients treated with FSRT were involved in the study. A commercial stereotactic mask fixation system (BrainLAB AG) was used for patient immobilization. Serial CT scans obtained before and during FSRT were used to assess the accuracy of patient immobilization by comparing the isocenter position. Daily portal imaging were acquired to establish day to day patient position variation. Displacement errors along the different directions were calculated as combination of systematic and random errors.ResultsThe mean isocenter displacements based on localization and verification CT imaging were 0.1 mm (SD 0.3 mm) in the lateral direction, 0.1 mm (SD 0.4 mm) in the anteroposterior, and 0.3 mm (SD 0.4 mm) in craniocaudal direction. The mean 3D displacement was 0.5 mm (SD 0.4 mm), being maximum 1.4 mm. No significant differences were found during the treatment (P = 0.4). The overall isocenter displacement as calculated by 456 anterior and lateral portal images were 0.3 mm (SD 0.9 mm) in the mediolateral direction, -0.2 mm (SD 1 mm) in the anteroposterior direction, and 0.2 mm (SD 1.1 mm) in the craniocaudal direction. The largest displacement of 2.7 mm was seen in the cranio-caudal direction, with 95% of displacements < 2 mm in any direction.ConclusionsThe results indicate that the setup error of the presented mask system evaluated by CT verification scans and portal imaging are minimal. Reproducibility of the isocenter position is in the best range of positioning reproducibility reported for other stereotactic systems.

Thorax set-up verification with multiple oblique treatment portal images

Patient set-up in external beam radiotherapy to the thorax is routinely checked by matching anterior and lateral ports to simulator or digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) reference images. We report a method to derive bed shifts from matching multiple oblique treatment ports, exploiting data redundancy for match consistency checking. Portal images were acquired for 14 thorax patients on the first 3 treatment days and matched to DRRs. As per clinical practice, anterior and lateral portal images were matched and checked. In addition, treatment ports were acquired and matched and field placement errors calculated from equations generating lateral and ventrodorsal bed shifts from any pair of treatment fields. We compared bed moves obtained from clinical imaging and from oblique treatment fields. Inconsistencies larger than 3 mm triggered a further independent check using new reference anatomy. With clinical image matching, set-up errors had a 95% confidence interval of +/-8 mm ventrodorsal and +/-6 mm in the lateral direction. With independent oblique field re-evaluation, the confidence intervals were reduced to +/-3 mm and +/-2 mm, respectively. Matching using the oblique fields detected set-up errors greater than 5 mm in 16 out of 90 matches. In the clinical environment, match errors greater than 5 mm in the thorax area can remain undetected using anterior and lateral fields only. Consequently, necessary bed shifts are not made or made in error. We developed a technique that uses portal images from multiple oblique treatment fields and exploits data redundancy for internal match consistency checking.

Assessment of a daily online implanted fiducial marker‐guided prostate radiotherapy process

The aims of this study were to investigate whether intrafraction prostate motion can affect the accuracy of online prostate positioning using implanted fiducial markers and to determine the effect of prostate rotations on the accuracy of the software-predicted set-up correction shifts. Eleven patients were treated with implanted prostate fiducial markers and online set-up corrections. Orthogonal electronic portal images were acquired to determine couch shifts before treatment. Verification images were also acquired during treatment to assess whether intrafraction motion had occurred. A limitation of the online image registration software is that it does not allow for in-plane prostate rotations (evident on lateral portal images) when aligning marker positions. The accuracy of couch shifts was assessed by repeating the registration measurements with separate software that incorporates full in-plane prostate rotations. Additional treatment time required for online positioning was also measured. For the patient group, the overall postalignment systematic prostate errors were less than 1.5 mm (1 standard deviation) in all directions (range 0.2-3.9 mm). The random prostate errors ranged from 0.8 to 3.3 mm (1 standard deviation). One patient exhibited intrafraction prostate motion, resulting in a postalignment prostate set-up error of more than 10 mm for one fraction. In 14 of 35 fractions, the postalignment prostate set-up error was greater than 5 mm in the anterior-posterior direction for this patient. Maximum prostate rotations measured from the lateral images varied from 2 degrees to 20 degrees for the patients. The differences between set-up shifts determined by the online software without in-plane rotations to align markers, and with rotations applied, was less than 1 mm (root mean square), with a maximum difference of 4.1 mm. Intrafraction prostate motion was found to reduce the effectiveness of the online set-up for one of the patients. A larger study is required to determine the magnitude of this problem for the patient population. The inability in the current software to incorporate in-plane prostate rotations is a limitation that should not introduce large errors, provided that the treatment isocentre is positioned near the centre of the prostate.

Measurements of patient’s setup variation in intensity-modulated radiation therapy of head and neck cancer using electronic portal imaging device

Purpose:To measure the interfraction setup variation of patient undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of head and neck cancer. The data was used to define adequate treatment CTV-to-PTV margin.Materials and methods:During March to September 2006, data was collected from 9 head and neck cancer patients treated with dynamic IMRT using 6 MV X-ray beam from Varian Clinac 23EX. Weekly portal images of setup fields which were anterior-posterior and lateral portal images were acquired for each patient with an amorphous silicon EPID, Varian aS500. These images were matched with the reference image from Varian Acuity simulator using the Varis vision software (Version 7.3.10). Six anatomical landmarks were selected for comparison. The displacement of portal image from the reference image was recorded in X (Left-Right, L-R), Y (Superior-Inferior, S-I) direction for anterior field and Z (Anterior-Posterior, A-P), Y (S-I) direction for lateral field. The systematic and random error for individual and population were calculated. Then the population-based margins were obtained.Results:A total of 135 images (27 simulation images and 108 portal images) and 405 match points was evaluated. The systematic error ranged from 0 to 7.5 mm and the random error ranged from 0.3 to 4.8 mm for all directions. The population-based margin ranged from 2.3 to 4.5 mm (L-R), 3.5 to 4.9 mm (S-I) for anterior field and 3.4 to 4.7 mm (A-P), 2.6 to 3.7 mm (S-I) for the lateral field. These margins were comparable to the margin that was prescribed at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (5-10 mm) for head and neck cancer.Conclusion:The population-based margin is less than 5 mm, thus the margin provides sufficient coverage for all of the patients.

TU‐EE‐A4‐04: Inter‐Fraction Shape Change When Using An Endorectal Balloon for Radiation Therapy of the Prostate

Purpose: To investigate inter‐fraction shape change when using an air‐filled endorectal balloon (ERB) to localize and immobilize the prostate. Method and Materials: Under an IRB‐approved treatment protocol to evaluate the use of endorectal balloons, patients have port films acquired before delivery of the treatment fields. Position adjustments in the AP direction are made based on the comparison of lateral portal images with planning DRRs. After treatment, a left lateral portal image is taken to evaluate setup. Currently an ERB is used for 15 fractions (27Gy) of the total treatment. The anterior wall of the ERB in the left lateral portal images for five patients was contoured, and the results used to estimate inter‐fraction shape change. Results: The mean position of the ERB wall was within 2mm of its position in the treatment plan for all patients, with a standard deviation of 1.2 – 2.3mm at central axis (CAX). Since the ERB minimizes intrafraction rectum/prostate motion, most of this can be attributed to setup uncertainties or patient motion. The standard deviation of the ERB wall at a point 3cm superior to CAX, corresponding to the superior end of the prostate, was larger at 2.1 – 4.3mm. The total range in the position of the ERB wall (i.e. difference in most anterior and most posterior positions) at CAX and 3cm superior to CAX was 4–6mm and 6–13mm, respectively. These differences indicate some significant inter‐fraction shape change. Conclusions: Interfraction shape change of the ERB appears to be negligible (s.d. 3cm superior of CAX&lt;3mm) for three patients, but more important (&gt;3mm) for two patients, indicating that some form of image‐guided or adaptive radiation therapy may be useful for some patients. Results for more patients will be presented at the meeting.

Treatment accuracy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy

Background and purpose To assess the geometric accuracy of the delivery of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for brain tumours using the Gill–Thomas–Cosman (GTC) relocatable frame. Accuracy of treatment delivery was measured via portal images acquired with an amorphous silicon based electronic portal imager (EPI). Results were used to assess the existing verification process and to review the current margins used for the expansion of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV). Patients and methods Patients were immobilized in a GTC frame. Target volume definition was performed on localization CT and MRI scans and a CTV to PTV margin of 5 mm (based on initial experience) was introduced in 3D. A Brown–Roberts–Wells (BRW) fiducial system was used for stereotactic coordinate definition. The existing verification process consisted of an intercomparison of the coordinates of the isocentres and anatomy between the localization and verification CT scans. Treatment was delivered with 6 MV photons using four fixed non-coplanar conformal fields using a multi-leaf collimator. Portal imaging verification consisted of the acquisition of orthogonal images centred through the treatment isocentre. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) created from the CT localization scans were used as reference images. Semi-automated matching software was used to quantify set up deviations (displacements and rotations) between reference and portal images. Results One hundred and twenty six anterior and 123 lateral portal images were available for analysis for set up deviations. For displacements, the total errors in the cranial/caudal direction were shown to have the largest SD's of 1.2 mm, while systematic and random errors reached SD's of 1.0 and 0.7 mm, respectively, in the cranial/caudal direction. The corresponding data for rotational errors (the largest deviation was found in the sagittal plane) was 0.7° SD (total error), 0.5° (systematic) and 0.5° (random). The total 3D displacement was 1.8 mm (mean), 0.8 mm (SD) with a range of 0.3–3.9 mm. Conclusions Portal imaging has shown that the existing verification and treatment delivery techniques currently in use result in highly reproducible setups. Random and systematic errors in the treatment planning and delivery chain will always occur, but monitoring and minimising them is an essential component of quality control. Portal imaging provides fast and accurate facility for monitoring patients on treatment and the results of this study have shown that a reduction in CTV to PTV margin from 5 to 4 mm (resulting in a considerable increase in the volume of normal tissue sparing) could be made.

Are lateral electronic portal images adequate for accurate on-line daily targeting of the prostate? Results of a prospective study

Are lateral electronic portal images adequate for accurate on-line daily targeting of the prostate? Results of a prospective study

Registration of electronic portal images for patient set-up verification

Images acquired from an electronic portal imaging device are aligned with digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) or other portal images to verify patient positioning during radiation therapy. Most of the currently available computer aided registration methods are based on the manual placement of corresponding landmarks. The purpose of the paper is twofold: (a) the establishment of a methodology for patient set-up verification during radiotherapy based on the registration of electronic portal images, and (b) the evaluation of the proposed methodology in a clinical environment. The estimation of set-up errors, using the proposed methodology, can be accomplished by matching the portal image of the current fraction of the treatment with the portal image of the baseline treatment (reference portal image) using a nearly automated technique. The proposed registration method is tested on a number of phantom data as well as on data from four patients. The phantom data included portal images that corresponded to various positions of the phantom on the treatment couch. For each patient, a set of 30 portal images was used. For the phantom data (for both transverse and lateral portal images), the maximum absolute deviations of the translational shifts were within 1.5 mm, whereas the in-plane rotation angle error was less than 0.5°. The two-way Anova revealed no statistical significant variability both within observer and between-observer measurements (P > 0.05). For the patient data, the mean values obtained with manual and the proposed registration methods were within 0.5 mm. In conclusion, the proposed registration method has been incorporated within a system, called ESTERR-PRO. Its image registration capability achieves high accuracy and both intra- and inter-user reproducibility. The system is fully operational within the Radiotherapy Department of ‘HYGEIA’ Hospital in Athens and it could be easily installed in any other clinical environment since it requires standardized hardware specifications and minimal human intervention.

Detection of internal organ movement in prostate cancer patients using portal images.

Previous research has indicated that the appearance of large gas pockets in portal images of prostate cancer patients might imply internal prostate motion. This was verified with simulations based on multiple computed tomography (CT) data for 15 patients treated in supine position. Apart from the planning CT scan, three extra scans were made during treatment. The clinical target volume (CTV) and the rectum were outlined in all scans. Lateral portal images were simulated from the CT data and difference images were calculated for all possible combinations of CT scans per patient; each scan was used both as reference and repeat scan but gas pockets in the reference scan were removed. Gas pockets in a repeat CT scan then show up as black areas in a difference image. Due to gravity, they normally appear in the ventral part of the rectum. The distances between the ventral edge of a gas pocket in a difference image and the projection of the delineated ventral rectum wall in the reference scan were calculated. These distances were correlated with the "true" rectum wall shifts (determined from direct comparison of the rectum delineations in reference and repeat scan) and with CTV movements determined by three-dimensional chamfer matching. Gas pockets occurred in 23% of cases. Nevertheless, about 50% of rectum wall shifts larger than 5 mm could be detected because they were associated with gas pockets with a lateral diameter > 2 cm. When gas pockets were visible in the repeat scan, rectum wall shifts could be accurately detected by the ventral gas pocket edge in the difference images (r= 0.97). The shift of the rectum wall as detected from gas pockets also correlated significantly with the anterior-posterior shift of the center of mass of the CTV (r=0.88). In conclusion, the simulations showed that lateral pelvic images contain more information than the bony structures that are normally used for setup verification. If large gas pockets appear in those images, a quantitative estimate of the position of prostate and rectum wall can be obtained by determination of the ventral edge of the gas pocket.

Automatic on-line electronic portal image analysis with a wavelet-based edge detector.

A fully automatic method for on-line electronic portal image analysis is proposed. The method uses multiscale edge detection with wavelets for both the field outline and the anatomical structures. An algorithm to extract and combine the information from different scales has been developed. The edges from the portal image are aligned with the edges from the reference image using chamfer matching. The reference is the first portal image of each treatment. The matching is applied first to the field and subsequently to the anatomy. The setup deviations are quantified as the displacement of the anatomical structures relative to the radiation beam boundaries. The performance of the algorithm was investigated for portal images with different contrast and noise level. The automatic analysis was used first to detect simulated displacements. Then the automatic procedure was tested on anterior-posterior and lateral portal images of a pelvic phantom. In both sets of tests the differences between the measured and the actual shifts were used to quantify the performance. Finally we applied the automatic procedure to clinical images of pelvic and lung regions. The output of the procedure was compared with the results of a manual match performed by a trained operator. The errors for the phantom tests were small: average standard deviation of 0.39 mm and 0.26 degrees and absolute mean error of 0.31 mm and 0.2 degrees were obtained. In the clinical cases average standard deviations of 1.32 mm and 0.6 degrees were found. The average absolute mean errors were 1.09 mm and 0.39 degrees. Failures were registered in 2% of the phantom tests and in 3% of the clinical cases. The algorithm execution is approximately 5 s on a 168 MHz Sun Ultra 2 workstation. The automatic analysis tool is considered to be a very useful tool for on-line setup corrections.

Reproducibility of conformal radiation therapy in localized carcinoma of the prostate without rigid immobilization

The reproducibility of 3-dimensional (3D) conformal therapy in localized prostate cancer was studied in 14 patients, based on retrospective analysis of 196 anteroposterior-posteroanterior (AP/PA) and lateral portal images. The patients were treated supine without rigid immobilization using six isocentric coplanar conformal fields. Three different observers independently compared the portal and simulation images, determining the deviation of each portal film from the corresponding simulation film. No significant deviations were observed in the cephalo-caudal or lateral axes (0 mm median values). However, a systematic median shift of 5 mm (0 to +10, range) was observed in the anteroposterior direction, presumably as a consequence of a sagging in the treatment couch under the patient's weight. After modification of the treatment couch, no further systematic anteroposterior shifts have been observed. These results demonstrate that the daily setup of conformal prostate irradiation fields can be performed with acceptable reproducibility without the use of special immobilization devices.