Residual Setup Errors Research Articles

Preliminary study of feasibility of surface-guided radiotherapy with concurrent tumor treating fields for glioblastoma: region of interest

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the residual setup errors from differently shaped region of interest (ROI) and investigate if surface-guided setup can be used in radiotherapy with concurrent tumor treating fields (TTFields) for glioblastoma.MethodsFifteen patients undergone glioblastoma radiotherapy with concurrent TTFields were involved. Firstly, four shapes of region of interest (ROI) (strip-shaped, T-shaped, ⊥\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\perp$$\\end{document}-shaped and cross-shaped) with medium size relative to the whole face were defined dedicate for patients wearing TTFields transducer arrays. Then, ROI-shape-dependent residual setup errors in six degrees were evaluated using an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom taking CBCT data as reference. Finally, the four types of residual setup errors were converted into corresponding dosimetry deviations (including the target coverage and the organ at risk sparing) of the fifteen radiotherapy plans using a feasible and robust geometric-transform-based method.ResultsThe algebraic sum of the average residual setup errors in six degrees (mm in translational directions and ° in rotational directions) of the four types were 6.9, 1.1, 4.1 and 3.5 respectively. In terms of the ROI-shape-dependent dosimetry deviations, the D98% of PTV dropped off by (3.4 ± 2.0)% (p < 0.05), (0.3 ± 0.5)% (p < 0.05), (0.9 ± 0.9)% (p < 0.05) and (1.1 ± 0.8)% (p < 0.05). The D98% of CTV dropped off by (0.5 ± 0.6)% (p < 0.05) for the strip-shaped ROI while remained unchanged for others.ConclusionSurface-guided setup is feasible in radiotherapy with concurrent TTFields and a medium-sized T-shaped ROI is appropriate for the surface-based guidance.

Optimal Correction Strategy of Image Guided Radiation Therapy Including the Paraortic Lymph Node Region in Patients With Cervical Cancers

The clinically accepted planning target volume margin for radiation therapy to the paraortic nodal region in cervical cancer patients is 5 mm. However, the comprehensive alignment and variability from the pelvic bone to all lumbar vertebrae are undetermined. This study aims to quantify the residual setup errors between the pelvic bone and lumbar vertebrae and determine the optimal correction strategy for patients with cervical cancer. Fifteen patients underwent pretreatment mega-voltage computed tomography scans (375 total fractions). Residual setup errors and required margins for each lumbar vertebra were calculated based on registrations accounting for pelvic rotation and translation. The systematic residual errors (1 SD) at L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5 using pelvic bone registration were 6.5, 4.9, 3.1, 1.5, and 0.6 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, 3.1, 2.3, 1.4, 0.6, and 0.3 mm in the right-left direction, and 2.7, 2.2, 1.7, 1.0, and 0.5 mm in the superior-inferior direction, respectively. The residual setup errors were the largest in the AP direction. Registration based on the pelvic bone required margins in the AP direction of 16.0, 12.1, 7.7, 3.6, and 1.3 mm for L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5, respectively, whereas registration based on L3 required margins of 8.8, 4.8, 4.4, 7.1, and 7.7 mm for L1, L2, L4, L5, and pelvic bone, respectively. Considerable local setup variability was found in patients with cervical cancer. After reviewing the corrective strategies, we determined that L3-based registration effectively minimized the required margins.

Novel frameless LINAC radiosurgery solution for uveal melanoma.

Radiation treatment has replaced enucleation as an organ-preservation treatment for patients with uveal melanoma (UM). We developed a novel non-invasive, frameless LINAC based solution for fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) treatment. We designed and constructed the a stereotactic ocular localization box that can be attached and indexed to a stereotactic LINAC tabletop. It contains adjustable LED lights as a gaze focus point and CCD camera for monitoring of the patient's eye position. The device also has 6 infrared spheres compatible with the ExacTRAC IGRT system. Treatment plans were developed using iPLAN Dose version 4.5, with conformal dynamic arcs and 6MV photon beam in flattening filter free mode, dosed to 50Gy in 5 fractions. During treatment, patients were instructed to stare at the light when a radiation beam is prepared and ready for delivery. Eye movement was tracked throughout treatment. Residual setup errors were recorded for evaluation. The stereotactic ocular localization box was 3D-printed with polylactic acid material and attached to the stereotactic LINAC tabletop. 10 patients were treated to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability and setup accuracy. Median treatment time for each arc is 17.3 ± 2.4 seconds (range: 13.8-23.4). After ExacTRAC setup, the residual setup errors are -0.1 ± 0.3mm laterally, -0.1 ± 0.3mm longitudinally, and 0 ± 0.2mm vertically. The residue rotational errors are -0.1 ± 0.3 degree pitch, 0.1 ± 0.2 degree roll, and 0 ± 0.2 degree couch rotation. All patients received treatment successfully. We successfully developed a novel non-invasive frameless mask-based LINAC solution for SRS for uveal melanoma, or other ocular tumors. It is well tolerated with high set up accuracy. Future directions for this localization box would include a multi-center trial to assess the efficacy and reproducibility in the fabrication and execution of such a solution for UM therapy.

Feasibility Study of Robust Treatment Planning in VMAT for Head and Neck Cancer

In general, patient positional uncertainty is considered by adding a geometrically expanded margin to clinical target volume (CTV) in photon radiation therapy. However, this method may not be suitable because image-guided radiotherapy is available. In intensity modulated proton beam therapy, robust treatment planning is currently common to take patient positional uncertainty into account in optimization rather than in margins. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of clinical implementation of the method in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancer. We quantitatively evaluated whether the plans with the robust optimization (Robust plans) can adequately cover CTV against patients' positional uncertainties and body shape change throughout a treatment course. Ten head and neck cancer patients were chosen, who were treated with PTV-based VMAT plans in our hospital between 2021.5-2022.4. RayStation V10A (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) was used for the robust optimization, which was applied to the CTVs with patient positional uncertainty of 5 mm in the 6-axis direction. Dose prescribed to the high- and low-risk CTVs were to 70 and 56 Gy in 35 fractions, respectively. To create the patients' CT images with residual set-up errors and body shape change at the treatment, pseudo simulation-CT images were created by deformable image registration with CBCT and simulation-CT. Dose distribution at the treatment was re-calculated by applying the plan to the pseudo simulation-CT images. The variation of D98 for the high-risk CTV from the time of treatment planning was evaluated on a weekly basis. For comparison, planning target volume (PTV) -based plans (5 mm margin circumference) were created and a similar evaluation was performed. D98 for the high-risk CTV varied between -3∼2% in the robust plan and between -5∼1% in the PTV-based plan during the treatment course. There was no significant difference in the amount of D98 variation between the two plans by t-test, except for one case with hypopharyngeal cancer. In this case, D98 for the high-risk CTV varied within ±1% with the PTV-based plan, whereas the value decreased up to 3% with the robust plan (p < 0.05). This case often had a residual setup error of approximately 5 mm at the sites related to the pitch rotation of head, suggesting that the dose distribution for the robust plan was affected by non-rigid positional errors. Patient weight loss during the treatment period was -3.5±2.4 kg, showing a weak correlation (r = -0.33) with the variation in D98 for the high-risk CTV. The robust treatment planning exhibits comparable CTV coverage to the conventional PTV-based planning against positional uncertainty and body shape change throughout a treatment period. In order to overcome set-up baseline shift by the non-rigid positional errors, re-planning should be recommended. Further planning studies will be conducted to promote clinical implementation of the method.

Dosimetric Impact of Setup Errors in Single-Isocenter VMAT Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases

In stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) of brain metastases (BM) using single-isocenter VMAT, intra-fraction positioning errors may affect target coverage. This study aims to investigate geometric and dosimetric accuracy in single and multiple BM treatments. Seventy patients with single (n = 38) and multiple (n = 32) BM treated with 15-21 Gy in 1 (n = 59) or 27 Gy in 3 (n = 11) fractions using coplanar FFF-VMAT technique were analyzed. PTV was defined by a 2 mm isotropic GTV expansion. Pre-treatment setup errors were evaluated with CBCT and corrected with a robotic six degrees-of-freedom couch. For each fraction, intra-fractional errors were measured by post-treatment CBCT and applied to the planning CT. Plans involving translations and rotations (Fx-plan) were recalculated with Monte Carlo TPS. Original and Fx-plans were compared in terms of target and brain dose parameters, performing the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (alpha = 0.05). The relationships of the BM volume, maximum dimension, distance-to-isocenter (for multiple BM cases only) and barycenter shift with the difference in target coverage between the two plans were investigated. The median post-treatment 3D error and maximum rotational error over all 129 BM were 0.5 mm [0.1-2.7] and 0.3° [0.0-1.3], respectively. The resulting median BM barycenter shift was 0.5 mm [0.1-2.7]. The percentage of fractions in which at least one BM barycenter shifted by more than 2 mm from the planned position was 4% and 1% for single and multiple BM cases, respectively. The median single GTV volume was 0.27 cc [0.01-10.48], while the PTV had a median volume of 1.05 cc [0.12-17.05]. The median BM maximum dimension was 10.7 mm [2.9-34.1] and for multiple BM the median distance-to-isocenter was 5.15 cm [0.89-7.52]. For single BM patients, the GTV D95% was never reduced by > 5%, while PTV D95% reductions > 1% occurred in only 11 (29%) PTV. For multiple BM patients, the target statistics were slightly worse, with dose deficits larger than 5% and 1% occurring respectively in 2 BM and 34 (37%) PTV. Anyway, the majority of single and multiple BM had a loss of coverage for both GTV and PTV below 1% in Fx-plans. Larger than 5% brain V12 Gy (SRS) and V20 Gy (fSRS) increases were observed for only one single BM patient. None of the two dosimetric comparisons resulted statistically significant (p>0.05). The differences in target coverage showed a moderate-to-strong correlation only with the BM barycenter shift in both cases (R2 = 0.70-0.73 for single and R2 = 0.44-0.50 for multiple BM). Due to the optimal patient setup, as well as the full six degrees-of-freedom corrections, the safety PTV margin, and the fast beam delivery, the dosimetric effects of residual setup and patient motion errors for both single and multiple BM cases were negligible. These findings warrant a potential reduction in the PTV margin with this treatment technique.

Evaluation of PTV margins and plan robustness for single isocentre multiple target stereotactic radiosurgery

PurposeRobustness to residual setup errors and linac delivery errors of BrainLab Elements single-isocentre-multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery was evaluated. MethodsResidual setup errors of 13 patients were evaluated. Linac delivery error was quantified through multi-metastases-Winston-Lutz measurements. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk recipe. Patient scans were translated and rotated by the median and 95th percentile of the combined uncertainties, and plans were recalculated subsequently. Previous patients’ plans were then replanned with the derived margins, effects on GTV coverage and normal brain doses were assessed. ResultsMean (±stdev) coverage of all targets in the original plans were 99.4% (±0.9%) and 98.9% (±1.0%) for 1 and 3-fraction patients respectively. Median geometrical errors did not result in significant differences. A statistically significant reduction in coverage to 91.4% (±10.4%) and 93.0% (±9.6%) was seen under 95th percentile errors. Applying the derived optimal margin of 0.5 mm resulted in 78% of the GTVs retaining a coverage of 98% or above even in the presence of 95th percentile errors, compared to only 30% if no margins were applied. Replanning with margins also caused no significant increase to local normal brain doses, however global dose increases varied according to the number of metastases. ConclusionsPlans were shown to be robust to average geometrical uncertainties despite targets having no margins, however occurrence of GTV under-coverage increased under 95th percentile scenarios. The margin was proven to substantially improve the target dose coverage with limited change to local normal brain doses, although not all sources of geometrical uncertainty were considered.

Dose coverage and breath-hold analysis of breast cancer patients treated with surface-guided radiotherapy

BackgroundSurface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) is used to ensure a reproducible patient set-up and for intra-fraction motion monitoring. The arm position of breast cancer patients is important, since this is related to the position of the surrounding lymph nodes. The aim of the study was to investigate the set-up accuracy of the arm of patients positioned using SGRT. Moreover, the actual delivered dose was investigated and an extensive breath-hold analysis was performed.Methods84 patients who received local or locoregional breast radiation therapy were positioned and monitored using SGRT. The accuracy of the arm position, represented by the clavicle position, was studied on the anterior–posterior kV-image. To investigate the effect of changes in anatomy and patient set-up, the actual delivered dose was calculated on cone-beam CT-scans (CBCT). A deformable registration of the CT to the CBCT was applied to deform the structures of the CT onto the CBCT. The minimum dose in percentage of the prescribed dose that was received by 98% of different CTV volumes (D98) was determined. An extensive breath-hold analysis was performed and definitions for relevant parameters were given.ResultsThe arm position of 77 out of 84 patients in total was successful, based on the clavicle rotation. The mean clavicle rotation was 0.4° (± 2.0°). For 89.8% of the patients who were irradiated on the whole-breast D98 was larger than 95% of the prescribed dose (D98 > 95%). D98 > 95% applied for 70.8% of the patients irradiated on the chest wall. Concerning the lymph node CTVs, D98 > 95% for at least 95% of the patients. The breath-hold analysis showed a mean residual setup error of − 0.015 (± 0.90), − 0.18 (± 0.82), − 0.58 (± 1.1) mm in vertical, lateral, and longitudinal direction, respectively. The reproducibility and stability of the breath-hold was good, with median 0.60 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.66–0.71] mm) and 0.20 mm (95% CI 0.21–0.23] mm), respectively.ConclusionsUsing SGRT we were able to position breast cancer patients successfully, with focus on the arm position. The actual delivered dose calculated on the CBCT was adequate and no relation between clavicle rotation and actual delivered dose was found. Moreover, breath-hold analysis showed a good reproducibility and stability of the breath-hold.Trial registration CCMO register NL69214.028.19.

Accumulated Dose Deviation of Rotational and Residual Setup Errors on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using MIM Treated by Helical Tomotherapy.

To analyze the relationship between the rotational and residual setup errors and the dose deviation on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated by helical tomotherapy (HT). From 25 July 2017 to 20 August 2019, 16 treated NPC patients were enrolled in the study. These patients were scanned with full target range megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) every other day. Adaptive radiotherapy function application software MIM7.1.3 were used to accumulate the actual dose. The dose deviation with the initial plan dose of the patients' target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared, and the correlation between the dose change and the setup errors (rotational setup errors and neck residual setup error) was analyzed. Translational setup errors increased farther away from the head. Statistically significant difference among 3 groups was achieved in the directions of left-right (P < .001) and anteroposterior (P < .001) by analysis of variance test. Compared with the initial plan dose, the actual accumulated dose of the target area decreased with the actual exposure dose of the OAR increased. However, most of the dosimetric parameters differed by less than 5%. No correlation was found between dose deviation values and the translational setup errors of target. However, sagittal rotational setup errors (pitch) had a positive relationship (P < .05) with the avearge dose of PTVnd (L) (r = 0.885), PTVnd(R) (r = 0.547) PTV1(r = 0.633) and PTV2(r = 0.584). Transverse rotational setup errors (roll) had a positive relationship (P < .05) with the avearge dose of PTVnd(R) (r = 0.593), PTV1(r = 0.505) and PTV2(r = 0.662). Dose deviation between the actual accumulated and initial plan is not negligible, but most indicators difference is less than 5%, NPC patients treated by HT with MVCT correction setup errors every other day did not need adaptive radiotherapy model unless got rapid tumor shrinkage or weight loss. Moreover, to minimize the dose deviation, more attention should be paid to the reduction of pitch, roll, and residual error of cervical vertebrae during body positioning.

Bayesian methods provide a practical real-world evidence framework for evaluating the impact of changes in radiotherapy

PurposeRetrospective studies have identified a link between the average set-up error of lung cancer patients treated with image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and survival. The IGRT protocol was subsequently changed to reduce the action threshold. In this study, we use a Bayesian approach to evaluate the clinical impact of this change to practice using routine ‘real-world’ patient data. Methods and MaterialsTwo cohorts of NSCLC patients treated with IGRT were compared: pre-protocol change (N = 780, 5 mm action threshold) and post-protocol change (N = 411, 2 mm action threshold). Survival models were fitted to each cohort and changes in the hazard ratios (HR) associated with residual set-up errors was assessed. The influence of using an uninformative and a skeptical prior in the model was investigated. ResultsFollowing the reduction of the action threshold, the HR for residual set-up error towards the heart was reduced by up to 10%. Median patient survival increased for patients with set-up errors towards the heart, and remained similar for patients with set-up errors away from the heart. Depending on the prior used, a residual hazard ratio may remain. ConclusionsOur analysis found a reduced hazard of death and increased survival for patients with residual set-up errors towards versus away from the heart post-protocol change. This study demonstrates the value of a Bayesian approach in the assessment of technical changes in radiotherapy practice and supports the consideration of adopting this approach in further prospective evaluations of changes to clinical practice.

PD-0403 Assessment of residual setup errors of clinical target volumes for head and neck radiotherapy

PD-0403 Assessment of residual setup errors of clinical target volumes for head and neck radiotherapy

PO-1489 Residual setup error of the pelvic lymph nodes after prostate based IGRT of prostate cancer patients

PO-1489 Residual setup error of the pelvic lymph nodes after prostate based IGRT of prostate cancer patients

Evaluation of correlation between intrafractional residual setup errors and accumulation of delivered dose distributions in single isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy for multiple brain metastases

PurposeTo evaluate the displacement of gross tumor volume (GTV) positions caused by intrafractional residual setup errors (RSEs) and to accumulate delivered dose distributions considering intrafraction RSEs in fractionated-stereotactic radiotherapy (f-SRT) with single isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (SI-VMAT) for multiple brain metastases. MethodsOverall, 72 consecutive patients who underwent f-SRT with SI-VMAT for multiple brain metastases were included. For all patients, 6D correction was performed using the ExacTrac X-ray (ETX) system. GTV displacement (ΔD) was calculated considering the intrafractional RSEs measured by the ETX system during irradiation. The correlation between ΔD and the distance from the isocenter to each GTV (d) was analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) images considering the intrafractional RSEs were generated for five patients with ΔD > 1 mm. The delivered dose distributions for all fractions were reconstructed on the corresponding CT, followed by their accumulation. ResultsThe 95th percentile of ΔD from 7,270 resultant center positions of 417 GTVs was 0.92 mm. No correlation was observed between ΔD and d. For 53 GTVs from five patients with ΔD > 1 mm, the difference of GTV D99.5% and D0.5% between the planned and accumulated values was −0.4 ± 2.5% and −1.0 ± 0.8%, respectively. There was no correlation between d and the difference of GTV D99.5% and D0.5%. ConclusionsWe found no significant difference in GTV D99.5% and D0.5%, despite the location of GTVs far from the isocenter. However, it should be noted that this result was because the intrafractional RSEs were reduced to a clinically acceptable level.

Analytical setup margin for spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy based on measured errors

BackgroundNo consensus currently exists about the correct margin size to use for spinal SBRT. Margins have been proposed to account for various errors individually, but not with all errors combined to result in a single margin value. The purpose of this work was to determine a setup margin for five-fraction spinal SBRT based on known errors during radiotherapy to achieve at least 90% coverage of the clinical target volume with the prescription dose for at least 90% of patients and not exceed a 30 Gy point dose or 23 Gy to 10% of the spinal cord subvolume.MethodsThe random and systematic error components of intrafraction motion, residual setup error, and end-to-end system accuracy were measured. The patient’s surface displacement was measured to quantify intrafraction motion, the residual setup error was quantified by re-registering accepted daily cone beam computed tomography setup images, and the displacement between measured and planned dose profiles in a phantom quantified the end-to-end system accuracy. These errors and parameters were used to identify the minimum acceptable margin size. The margin recommendation was validated by assessing dose delivery across 140 simulated patient plans suffering from various random shifts representative of the measured errors.ResultsThe errors were quantified in three dimensions and the analytical margin generated was 2.4 mm. With this margin applied in the superior/inferior direction only, at least 90% of the CTV was covered with the prescription dose for 96% of the 140 patients simulated with minimal negative effect on the spinal cord dose levels.ConclusionsThe findings of this work support that a 2.4 mm margin applied in the superior/inferior direction can achieve at least 90% coverage of the CTV for at least 90% of dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy spinal SBRT patients in the presence of errors when immobilized with vacuum bags.

Automated Intrafraction Motion Detection in 3D and Correction Using Monoscopic X-Ray Imaging Improves Accuracy and Efficiency of for High-Dose Prostate SBRT

Automated marker detection allows real time image guidance for treatment setup in 6D and intra-beam monitoring in 3D on a standard linear accelerator. This study retrospectively assessed the accuracy and efficiency of automated marker registration vs. manual match from a group of treated prostate SBRT patients.An automated marker detection scheme was developed by reconstructing a 3D marker model from orthogonal paired images for pre-treatment setup alignment using iterative closest point (ICP). The 3D marker model was back-projected to monoscopic x-ray images acquired during treatment. 3D marker motion was estimated from the consecutive (40o gantry angle apart) monoscopic x-ray images. Standard treatment was 2 arc Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan prescribed to 8 Gy per fraction (x5). From 9 SBRT prostate patients, 135 paired images and 810 monoscopic x-ray images were analyzed using the automated scheme by comparing to the 3D marker model of planning image. A subgroup of the data set (5 patients, 12 fractions, 235 monoscopic images) were re-aligned to 3D marker position of setup images from the automated program to compare marker motion without realignment, which had minor residual setup error after manual match. Paired sample Wilcoxon ranked test was run to evaluate the improvement of using automated alignment, P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.Using automated marker match as reference, the residual setup error after manual match of the entire group (135 paired images) was (0.3 ± 0.6) mm, (0.1 ± 0.7) mm, (0.2 ± 0.8) mm in lateral (Lat), longitudinal (Long), vertical (Vert) directions, and (-2.6 ± 5.0)o, (-0.1 ± 2.8)o, (-1.3 ± 3.0)o in pitch, yaw, roll directions, respectively. The centroid of the marker position had an error of (0.2 ± 1.2) mm, (-0.6 ± 1.3) mm, (0.7 ± 1.4) mm in Lat, Long, Vert directions, respectively, during treatment (from 810 images). Treatment error at Lat, Long, Vert directions had stronger correlation with setup error in Lat & roll (-0.57 & -0.18), in Long & yaw (-0.49 & -0.25), and in Vert & roll (0.48 & 0.31), respectively. The magnitude of the improvement for individual fraction of the subgroup (235 images) using automated setup correction was 0.4 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.4 mm in Lat (P < 0.01), Long (P = 0.04), Vert (P = 0.39). The fraction of the treatment time that the marker centroid had a positional error of more than 2mm (a tolerance which triggered treatment interruption) was 9.5%, 18.5%, 12% in Lat, Long, Vert directions, respectively, using manual setup match, and 2.5%, 8.5%, 0.5% using automated setup match.This study demonstrated the ability of automated marker match to improve the accuracy and efficiency of prostate SBRT during treatment using monoscopic x-ray image. The improvement of treatment accuracy was 0.4 mm in each (X, Y, and Z) dimension. The improvement treatment efficiency was 50% reduction of treatment interruption which needs re-imaging. In addition, auto-registration saves manual markers alignment time.

Single-isocenter stereotactic non-coplanar arc treatment of 200\xa0patients with brain metastases: multileaf collimator size and setup uncertainties

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate our 2 years’ experience with single-isocenter, non-coplanar, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).MethodsA total of 202 patients treated with the VMAT SRS solution were analyzed retrospectively. Plan quality was assessed for 5 mm (120) and 2.5 mm (high-definition, HD) central leaf width multileaf collimators (MLCs). For BMs at varying distances from the plan isocenter, the geometric offset from the ideal position for two image-guided radiotherapy workflows was calculated. In the workflow with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, München, Germany; W‑ET), patient positioning errors were corrected at each couch rotation. In the workflow without ExacTrac (W-noET), only the initial patient setup correction was considered. The dose variation due to rotational errors was simulated for multiple-BM plans with the HD-MLC.ResultsPlan conformity and quality assurance were equivalent for plans delivered with the two MLCs while the HD-MLC plans provided better healthy brain tissue (BmP) sparing. 95% of the BMs had residual intrafractional setup errors ≤ 2 mm for W‑ET and 68% for W‑noET. For small BM (≤1 cc) situated >3 cm from the plan isocenter, the dose received by 95% of the BM decreased in median (interquartile range) by 6.3% (2.8–8.8%) for a 1-degree rotational error.ConclusionThis study indicates that the HD-MLC is advantageous compared to the 120-MLC for sparing healthy brain tissue. When a 2-mm margin is applied, W‑noET is sufficient to ensure coverage of BM situated ≤ 3 cm of the plan isocenter, while for BM further away, W‑ET is recommended.

Predicting the effect of indirect cell kill in the treatment of multiple brain metastases via single-isocenter/multitarget volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiosurgery.

PurposeDue to spatial uncertainty, patient setup errors are of major concern for radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases (m‐bm) when using single‐isocenter/multitarget (SIMT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. However, recent clinical outcome studies show high rates of tumor local control for SIMT‐VMAT. In addition to direct cell kill (DCK), another possible explanation includes the effects of indirect cell kill (ICK) via devascularization for a single dose of 15 Gy or more and by inducing a radiation immune intratumor response. This study quantifies the role of indirect cell death in dosimetric errors as a function of spatial patient setup uncertainty for stereotactic treatments of multiple lesions.Material and MethodsNine complex patients with 61 total tumors (2‐16 tumors/patient) were planned using SIMT‐VMAT with geometry similar to HyperArc with a 10MV‐FFF beam (2400 MU/min). Isocenter was placed at the geometric center of all tumors. Average gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were 1.1 cc (0.02–11.5) and 1.9 cc (0.11–18.8) with an average distance to isocenter of 5.4 cm (2.2–8.9). The prescription was 20 Gy to each PTV. Plans were recalculated with induced clinically observable patient setup errors [±2 mm, ±2o] in all six directions. Boolean structures were generated to calculate the effect of DCK via 20 Gy isodose volume (IDV) and ICK via 15 Gy IDV minus the 20 Gy IDV. Contributions of each IDV to the PTV coverage were analyzed along with normal brain toxicity due to the patient setup uncertainty. Induced uncertainty and minimum dose covering the entire PTV were analyzed to determine the maximum tolerable patient setup errors to utilize the ICK effect for radiosurgery of m‐bm via SIMT‐VMAT.ResultsPatient setup errors of 1.3 mm /1.3° in all six directions must be maintained to achieve PTV coverage of the 15 Gy IDV for ICK. Setup errors of ±2 mm/2° showed clinically unacceptable loss of PTV coverage of 29.4 ± 14.6% even accounting the ICK effect. However, no clinically significant effect on normal brain dosimetry was observed.ConclusionsRadiosurgery of m‐bm using SIMT‐VMAT treatments have shown positive clinical outcomes even with small residual patient setup errors. These clinical outcomes, while largely due to DCK, may also potentially be due to the ICK. Potential mechanisms, such as devascularization and/or radiation‐induced intratumor immune enhancement, should be explored to provide a better understanding of the radiobiological response of stereotactic radiosurgery of m‐bm using a SIMT‐VMAT plan.

Evaluation of the setup discrepancy between 6D ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.

The objective of this study was to analyze the difference in residual setup errors between 6D ExacTrac and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image-guided systems in spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We investigated 76 patients with spinal tumors who received SBRT using Novalis Tx at our institution between January 2013 and September 2020. A Vac-lok (EZ-FIX®, Arlico Medical Company, South Korea) fixture and an assistive device, based on the region involved, were used to immobilize patients and to increase the inter-fractional setup reproducibility. The difference in the root mean square (RMS) between the 6D ExacTrac and 3D CBCT was -0.75 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.16 mm, and -0.03°; the RMS value was 1.31 mm, 1.06 mm, 0.87 mm, and 0.64°; and the standard deviation was 0.80 mm, 0.72 mm, 0.62 mm, and 0.44° for lateral, longitudinal, vertical, and yaw directions, respectively. The difference in the average RMS between ExacTrac and CBCT was <1.03 mm in the translation direction and <0.47° in the rotational direction; the results were statistically significant in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, but not in the yaw direction. Thus, it is necessary to verify the ExacTrac image according to the CBCT image.

Trajectory log analysis and cone-beam CT-based daily dose calculation to investigate the dosimetric accuracy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for gynecologic cancer.

This study evaluated unexpected dosimetric errors caused by machine control accuracy, patient setup errors, and patient weight changes/internal organ deformations. Trajectory log files for 13 gynecologic plans with seven‐ or nine‐beam dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and differences between expected and actual MLC positions and MUs were evaluated. Effects of patient setup errors on dosimetry were estimated by in‐house software. To simulate residual patient setup errors after image‐guided patient repositioning, planned dose distributions were recalculated (blurred dose) after the positions were randomly moved in three dimensions 0–2 mm (translation) and 0°–2° (rotation) 28 times per patient. Differences between planned and blurred doses in the clinical target volume (CTV) D98% and D2% were evaluated. Daily delivered doses were calculated from cone‐beam computed tomography by the Hounsfield unit‐to‐density conversion method. Fractional and accumulated dose differences between original plans and actual delivery were evaluated by CTV D98% and D2%. The significance of accumulated doses was tested by the paired t test. Trajectory log file analysis showed that MLC positional errors were −0.01 ± 0.02 mm and MU delivery errors were 0.10 ± 0.10 MU. Differences in CTV D98% and D2% were <0.5% for simulated patient setup errors. Differences in CTV D98% and D2% were 2.4% or less between the fractional planned and delivered doses, but were 1.7% or less for the accumulated dose. Dosimetric errors were primarily caused by patient weight changes and internal organ deformation in gynecologic radiation therapy.

A comparative study of prostate PTV margins for patients using hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon in proton therapy.

To compare the planning target volume (PTV) margins needed for prostate patients who have used hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon during proton treatments. Total of 190 prostate patients treated with proton therapy during 2017 were selected for this study. Of these patients, 96 had hydrogel spacer injection and 94 patients had only rectal balloons insertion. All patients had implanted gold markers inside the prostate for daily target alignment. Post-treatment radigraphs were obtained to evaluate prostate intrafraction motion. The systematic and random components of patient setup residual error and prostate intrafraction motion error were obtained. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk formula for both patient groups. For setup residual error, the mean values in the superior-inferior (SI) direction and the variances in the left-right (LR) direction were statistically different between the two groups. For intrafraction motion, there were significant differences of the mean values in the SI direction and of the variances in both LR and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. The population PTV margins for hydrogel spacer group were 2.6mm, 3.3mm, and 1.6mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. For the rectal balloon group, the PTV margins were 2.1mm, 3.1mm, and 2.0mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the patient setup and prostate intrafraction motion errors of the two patient groups. However, under the current protocol of bladder preparation and daily marker-based x-ray image-guidance, population PTV margins were comparable between the two patient groups.

PO-1636: Robustness of breast treatments with Tomotherapy toward residual setup errors

PO-1636: Robustness of breast treatments with Tomotherapy toward residual setup errors