Setup Margin Research Articles

The influence of daily imaging and target margin reduction on secondary cancer risk in image-guided and adaptive proton therapy.

Image-guided and adaptive proton therapy rely on daily CBCT or CT imaging, which increases radiation dose and radiation-induced cancer risk. Online adaptation however also reduces setup uncertainty, and the additional risk might be compensated by reducing the setup robustness margin. 
This work developed a framework to investigate how much this robustness margin should be reduced to offset the secondary cancer risk from additional imaging dose and applied it to proton therapy for head-and-neck cancer. 

Approach:For five patients with head-and-neck cancer, voxel-wise CT and CBCT imaging doses were estimated with Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations, calibrated with air and PMMA phantom measurements. The total dose of several image-guided and adaptive treatments protocols was calculated by summing the planning CT dose, daily and weekly CBCT or CT dose, and therapy dose, robustly optimized with setup margins between 0 and 4 mm. These were compared to a reference protocol with 4 mm setup margin without daily imaging. All plans further used 3% range robustness. Organ-wise excess absolute risk (EAR) of cancer was calculated with three models to determine at which setup margin the total EAR of image-guided and adaptive treatment protocols was equal to the total EAR of the reference.

Results:The difference between the simulated and measured CT and CBCT doses was within 10%. Using the Monte Carlo models, we found that a 1 mm setup margin reduction was sufficient for most patients, treatment protocols, and cancer risk models to compensate the additional risk \imposed by daily and weekly imaging. For some protocols, even a smaller reduction sufficed, depending on the imaging frequency and type. The risk reduction by reducing the margin was mainly due to reducing the risk for carcinomas in the brain and, for some patients, the oral cavity.

Significance: Our framework allows to compare an increased imaging dose with the reduced treatment dose from margin reductions in terms of radiation-induced cancer risk. It is extendable to different treatment sites, modalities, and imaging protocols, in clinic-specific or even patient-specific assessments.

Setup errors analysis in iterative kV CBCT: A clinical study of cervical cancer treated with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

This study aims to analyze setup errors in pelvic Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for patients with non-surgical primary cervical cancer, utilizing the onboard iterative kV cone beam CT (iCBCT) imaging system on the Varian Halcyon 2.0 ring gantry structure accelerator to enhance radiotherapy precision. We selected 132 cervical cancer patients who underwent VMAT with daily iCBCT imaging guidance. Before each treatment session, a registration method based on the bony structure was employed to acquire iCBCT images with the corresponding planning CT images. Following verification and adjustment of image registration results along the three axes (but not rotational), setup errors in the lateral (X-axis), longitudinal (Y-axis), and vertical (Z-axis) directions were recorded for each patient. Subsequently, we analyzed 3642 iCBCT image setup errors. The mean setup errors for the X, Y, and Z axes were 4.50±3.79mm, 6.08±6.30mm, and 1.48±2.23mm, respectively. Before correction with iCBCT, setup margins based on the Van Herk formula for the X, Y, and Z axes were 6.28, 12.52, and 3.26mm, respectively. In individuals aged 60 years and older, setup errors in the X and Y axes were significantly larger than those in the younger group (p<0.05). Additionally, there is no significant linear correlation between setup errors and treatment fraction numbers. Data analysis underscores the importance of precise Y-axis setup for cervical cancer patients undergoing VMAT. Radiotherapy centers without daily iCBCT should appropriately extend the planning target volume (PTV) along the Y-axis for cervical cancer patients receiving pelvic VMAT. Elderly patients exhibit significantly larger setup errors compared to younger counterparts. In conclusion, iCBCT-guided radiotherapy is recommended for cervical cancer patients undergoing VMAT to improve setup precision.

Evaluation of the trend of set-up errors during the treatment period using set-up margin in prostate radiotherapy

Accurate information on set-up error during radiotherapy is essential for determining the optimal number of treatments in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This necessitates careful control by the radiotherapy staff to assess the patient's condition. This study aimed to develop an evaluation method of the temporal trends in a patient's specific prostate movement during treatment using image matching and margin values. This study included 65 patients who underwent prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (mean treatment time, 87.2 s). Set-up errors were assessed using bone, inter-, and intra-fraction marker matching across 39 fractions. The set-up margin was determined by dividing the four periods into 39 fractions using Stroom's formula and correlation coefficient. The intra-fraction set-up error was biased in the anterior-superior (AS) direction during treatment. The temporal trend of set-up errors during radiotherapy slightly increased based on bone matching and inter-fraction marker matching, with a 1.6-mm difference in the set-up margin fractions 11 to 20. The correlation coefficient of the mean prostate movement during treatment significantly decreased in the superior-inferior direction, while remaining high in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions. Image matching contributed significantly to the improvement of set-up errors; however, careful attention is needed for prostate movement in the AS direction, particularly during short treatment times. Understanding the trend of set-up errors during the treatment period is essential in numerical information sharing on patient condition and evaluating the margins for tailored hypo-fractionated radiotherapy, considering the facility's image-guided radiation therapy technology.

Setup margins based on the inter- and intrafractional setup error of left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath-hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT).

The use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), and hypofractionated regimen requires adequate patient setup accuracy to achieve an optimal outcome. The purpose of this study was to assess the setup accuracy of patients receiving left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath-hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) and to calculate the corresponding setup margins. The patient setup accuracy between and within radiotherapy fractions was measured by comparing the 6DOF shifts made by the SGRT system AlignRT with the shifts made by kV-CBCT. Three hundred and three radiotherapy fractions of 23 left-sided breast cancer patients using DIBH and SGRT were used for the analysis. All patients received pre-treatment DIBH training and visual feedback during DIBH. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test patient setup differences for statistical significance. The corresponding setup margins were calculated using the van Herk's formula. The intrafractional patient setup accuracy was significantly better than the interfractional setup accuracy (p<0.001). The setup margin for the combined inter- and intrafractional setup error was 4, 6, and 4mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions if based on SGRT alone. The intrafractional error contributed ≤1mm to the calculated setup margins. With SGRT, excellent intrafractional and acceptable interfractional patient setup accuracy can be achieved for the radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer using DIBH and modern radiation techniques. This allows for reducing the frequency of kV-CBCTs, thereby saving treatment time and radiation exposure.

Optimal planning target margin for prostate radiotherapy based on interfractional and intrafractional variability assessment during 1.5T MRI-guided radiotherapy.

We analyzed daily pre-treatment- (PRE) and real-time motion monitoring- (MM) MRI scans of patients receiving definitive prostate radiotherapy (RT) with 1.5 T MRI guidance to assess interfractional and intrafractional variability of the prostate and suggest optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Rigid registration between PRE-MRI and planning CT images based on the pelvic bone and prostate anatomy were performed. Interfractional setup margin (SM) and interobserver variability (IO) were assessed by comparing the centroid values of prostate contours delineated on PRE-MRIs. MM-MRIs were used for internal margin (IM) assessment, and PTV margin was calculated using the van Herk formula. We delineated 400 prostate contours on PRE-MRI images. SM was 0.57 ± 0.42, 2.45 ± 1.98, and 2.28 ± 2.08 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively, after bone localization and 0.76 ± 0.57, 1.89 ± 1.60, and 2.02 ± 1.79 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. IO was 1.06 ± 0.58, 2.32 ± 1.08, and 3.30 ± 1.85 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after bone localization and 1.11 ± 0.55, 2.13 ± 1.07, and 3.53 ± 1.65 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. Average IM was 2.12 ± 0.86, 2.24 ± 1.07, and 2.84 ± 0.88 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Calculated PTV margin was 2.21, 5.16, and 5.40 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Movements in the SI direction were the largest source of variability in definitive prostate RT, and interobserver variability was a non-negligible source of margin. The optimal PTV margin should also consider the internal margin.

Prostate volume variation during 1.5T MR-guided adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and correlation with treatment toxicity

IntroductionTo evaluate prostate volume change during daily-adaptive prostate SBRT on 1.5 T MR-linac and to correlate it with treatment toxicity. Methodsa series of patients affected by low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer was treated by 5-fraction SBRT within a prospective study (Prot. n° 23748). Total dose was 35 Gy and 36.25 Gy delivered every day or on alternate days. Treatment toxicity was recorded with the following patient reported outcomes (PROMs): IPSS, ICIQ-SF, and EPIC-26. Results254 patients were included in the analysis. Baseline median CTV volume was 55 cc (range 15.3–163.3). Mean prostate volume were 58.9 cc, and 62.7 cc at first and last fraction respectively (mean volume increase 6.4 %; p = <0.0001). We observed prostate swelling (mean 15.4 % increase) in 50 % of cases, stable volume (≤5% volume change) in 39 % of patients, and prostate shrinkage in 11 % of cases (mean 12.2 % reduction). Baseline CTV > 55 cc showed a trend towards higher CTV shrinkage (-10.5 % versus −14.5 %; p = 0.052). We found no correlation between CTV change and PROMs. Prostate swelling was generally compensated by the planned PTV expansion, even though the mean setup volume dropped from 47.4 cc to 38.9 cc at last fraction, with few cases not covered by initial setup margins. ConclusionThe present study reported a significant prostate volume change during prostate SBRT on 1.5T MR-linac. We observed both prostate swelling in half of cases and few cases of prostate shrinkage. No correlations were found with PROMs in this population treatment with daily-adaptive strategy.

Dosimetric comparison of magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for distal esophageal cancer

Advances in radiotherapy (RT) technologies permit significant decreases in the dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) for patients with esophageal cancer (EC). Novel RT modalities such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), as well as motion management techniques including breath hold (BH) are expected to further improve the therapeutic ratio. However, to our knowledge, the dosimetric benefits of PBT vs MRgRT vs volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) have not been directly compared for EC. We performed a retrospective in silico evaluation using the images and datasets of nine distal EC patients who were treated at our institution with a 0.35-Tesla MR linac to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions in mid-inspiration BH (BH-MRgRT). Comparison free-breathing (FB) intensity-modulated PBT (FB-IMPT) and FB-VMAT plans were retrospectively created using the same prescription dose, target volume coverage goals, and OAR constraints. A 5 mm setup margin was used for all plans. BH-IMPT and BH-VMAT plans were not evaluated as they would not reflect our institutional practice. Planners were blinded to the results of the treatment plans created using different radiation modalities. The primary objective was to compare plan quality, target volume coverage, and OAR doses. All treatment plans met pre-defined target volume coverage and OAR constraints. The median conformity and homogeneity indices between FB-IMPT, BH-MRgRT and FB-VMAT were 1.13, 1.25, and 1.43 (PITV) and 1.04, 1.15, 1.04 (HI), respectively. For FB-IMPT, BH-MRgRT and FB-VMAT the median heart dose metrics were 52.8, 79.3, 146.8 (V30Gy, cc), 35.5, 43.8, 77.5 (V40Gy, cc), 16.9, 16.9, 32.5 (V50Gy, cc) and 6.5, 14.9, 17.3 (mean, Gy), respectively. Lung dose metrics were 8.6, 7.9, 18.5 (V20Gy, %), and 4.3, 6.3, 11.2 (mean, Gy), respectively. The mean liver dose (Gy) was 6.5, 19.6, 22.2 respectively. Both FB-IMPT and BH-MRgRT achieve substantial reductions in heart, lung, and liver dose compared to FB-VMAT. We plan to evaluate dosimetric outcomes across these RT modalities assuming consistent use of BH.

SGRT-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer setup accuracy and margin of the PTV.

Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT, AlignRT) was used to analyze motion during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in lung cancer patients and to explore the margin of the planning target volume (PTV). The residual errors of the AlignRT were evaluated based on grayscale cone-beam computed tomography registration results before each treatment. AlignRT log file was used to analyze the correlation between the frequency and longest duration of errors larger than 2mm and lasting longer than 2 s and maximum error with age and treatment duration. The displacement value at the end of treatment, the average displacement value, and the 95% probability density displacement interval were defined as intrafraction errors, and PTV1, PTV2, PTV3 were calculated by Van Herk formula or Z score analysis. Organ dosimetric differences were compared after the experience-based margin was replaced with PTV3. The interfraction residual errors were Vrt0 , 0.06±0.18cm; Lng0 , -0.03±0.19cm; Lat0 , 0.02±0.15cm; Pitch0 , 0.23±0.7°; Roll0 , 0.1±0.69°; Rtn0 , -0.02±0.79°. The frequency, longest duration and maximum error in vertical direction were correlated with treatment duration (r=0.404, 0.353, 0.283, p<0.05, respectively). In the longitudinal direction, the frequency was correlated with age and treatment duration (r=0.376, 0.283, p<0.05, respectively), maximum error was correlated with age (r=0.4, P<0.05). Vertical, longitudinal, lateral margins of PTV1, PTV2, PTV3 were 2mm, 4mm, 2mm; 2mm, 2mm, 2mm, 3mm, 5mm, 3mm, respectively. After replacing the original PTV, mean lung dose (MLD), 2-cm3 chest wall dose (CD), lung V20 decreased by 0.2Gy, 2.1Gy, 0.5%, respectively (p<0.05). AlignRT can be used for interfraction setup and monitoring intrafraction motion. It is more reasonable to use upper and lower limits of the 95% probability density interval as an intrafraction error.

Setup accuracy and margins for surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) of head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvic target volumes

The goal of the study was to evaluate the inter- and intrafractional patient setup accuracy of target volumes located in the head, thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic regions when using SGRT, by comparing it with that of laser alignment using patient skin marks, and to calculate the corresponding setup margins. A total of 2303 radiotherapy fractions of 183 patients were analyzed. All patients received daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography scans (kV-CBCT) for online verification. From November 2019 until September 2020, patient setup was performed using laser alignment with patient skin marks, and since October 2020, using SGRT. The setup accuracy was measured by the six degrees of freedom (6DOF) corrections based on the kV-CBCT. The corresponding setup margins were calculated using the van Herk formula. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the impact of multiple factors on the setup accuracy. The inter-fractional patient setup accuracy was significantly better using SGRT compared to laser alignment with skin marks. The mean three-dimensional vector of the translational setup deviation of tumors located in the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis using SGRT was 3.6 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 mm to 3.9 mm) and 4.5 mm using laser alignment with skin marks (95% CI 3.9 mm to 5.2 mm; p = 0.001). Calculation of setup margins for the combined inter- and intra-fractional setup error revealed similar setup margins using SGRT and kV-CBCT once a week compared to laser alignment with skin marks and kV-CBCT every other day. Furthermore, comparable setup margins were found for open-face thermoplastic masks with AlignRT compared to closed-face thermoplastic masks with laser alignment and mask marks. SGRT opens the possibility to reduce the number of CBCTs while maintaining sufficient setup accuracy. The advantage is a reduction of imaging dose and overall treatment time. Open-face thermoplastic masks may be used instead of closed-face thermoplastic masks to increase the patient's comfort.

Commissioning Intracranial Stereotactic Radiosurgery for a Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiation Therapy (MRgRT) System: MR-RT Localization and Dosimetric End-to-End Validation

This is the first reporting of the MRIdian A3iTM intracranial package (BrainTxTM) and benchmarks the end-to-end localization and dosimetric accuracy for commissioning an magnetic resonace (MR)-guided stereotactic radiosurgery program. We characterized the localization accuracy between MR and radiation (RT) isocenter through an end-to-end hidden target test, relative dose profile intercomparison, and absolute dose validation. BrainTx consists of a dedicated head coil, integrated mask immobilization system, and high-resolution MR sequences. Coil and baseplate attenuation was quantified. An in-house phantom (Cranial phantOm foR magNetic rEsonance Localization of a stereotactIc radiosUrgery doSimeter, CORNELIUS) was developed from a mannequin head filled with silicone gel, film, and MR BB with pinprick. A hidden target test evaluated MR-RT localization of the 1×1×1 mm3 TrueFISP MR and relative dose accuracy in film for a 1 cm diameter (International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)-X/IEC-Y) and 1.5 cm diameter (IEC-Y/IEC-Z) spherical target. Two clinical cases (irregular-shaped target and target abutting brainstem) were mapped to the CORNELIUS phantom for feasibility assessment. A 2-dimensional (2D)-gamma compared calculated and measured dose for spherical and clinical targets with 1 mm/1% and 2 mm/2% criteria, respectively. A small-field chamber (A26MR) measured end-to-end absolute dose for a 1 cm diameter target. Coil and baseplate attenuation were 0.7% and 2.7%, respectively. The displacement of MR to RT localization as defined through the pinprick was 0.49 mm (IEC-X), 0.27 mm (IEC-Y), and 0.51 mm (IEC-Z) (root mean square 0.76 mm). The reproducibility across IEC-Y demonstrated high fidelity (<0.02 mm). Gamma pass rates were 97.1% and 95.4% for 1 cm and 1.5 cm targets, respectively. Dose profiles for an irregular-shaped target and abutting organ-at-risk-target demonstrated pass rates of 99.0% and 92.9%, respectively. The absolute end-to-end dose difference was <1%. All localization and dosimetric evaluation demonstrated submillimeter accuracy, per the TG-142, TG-101, MPPG 9.a. criteria for SRS/SRT systems, indicating acceptable delivery capabilities with a 1 mm setup margin.

Optimal Planning Target Margin for Prostate Radiotherapy Based on Interfractional and Intrafractional Variability Assessment during 1.5T MR-Guided Radiotherapy.

MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) provides superior soft-tissue contrast over CT-based image guidance. We collected and analyzed daily pre-treatment (PRE) and real-time motion-monitoring (MM) MR images of patients receiving prostate radiotherapy to assess interfractional and intrafractional variability of prostate using two localization methods: pelvic bony anatomy (bone) and prostate during online adaptive radiotherapy (ART). PRE and MM MRIs for the first five fractions of twenty prostate cancer patients who received definitive MRgRT with 1.5T MRI were collected. Using MIM software, rigid registration between PRE MRI and planning CT images based on pelvic bony anatomy and prostate reproduced bone localization and online ART, respectively. To determine interfractional setup margin (SM), prostate was delineated on all PRE MRIs registered after bone and prostate localizations by a radiation oncologist, and centroid values of prostate contours between planning CT and PRE MRIs were compared. To determine interobserver variability, another radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, and a radiotherapist contoured prostate for both localization methods. For internal margin (IM) assessment, we used MM MRIs of the five patients who had all three sets of coronal, sagittal, and axial cine images and determined the maximum contour displacement using in-house MATLAB-based software converting binary image files to 2D cine images with a superimposed grid of 1 mm spacing. A total of 100 PRE and 25 MM MRIs were analyzed. Four hundred prostate contours were delineated on MR images registered with planning CT based on both bony anatomy and prostate. After bone localization, SM was 0.57±0.42 mm in left-right (LR), 2.45±1.98 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), and 2.28±2.08 mm in superior-inferior (SI) directions, and IO was 1.06±0.58 mm in LR, 2.32±1.08 mm in AP, and 3.30±1.85 mm in SI directions. After prostate localization, SM was 0.76±0.57 mm in LR, 1.89±1.60 mm in AP, and 2.2±1.79 mm in SI directions, and IO was 1.11±0.55 mm in LR, 2.13±1.07 mm in AP, and 3.53±1.65 mm in SI directions. Average IM was 2.12±0.86 mm, 2.24±1.07 mm, and 2.84±0.88 mm in LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Using daily MRIs from MRgRT, we showed that movements in the SI direction were the largest source of variability in prostate definitive RT. In addition, interobserver variability was a non-negligible source of margin. Optimal PTV margin should also consider internal margin, especially in the SI direction.

The New Quantum Image by Dynamic Nuclear Polarized MRI for the Assessment of Cardiac Radioablation to the Cavotricuspid Isthmus

Cardiac arrhythmias are usually treated with invasive, time consuming catheter ablation techniques. While recently stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging non-invasive treatment in the management of cardiac arrhythmias. To identify and assess the cardiac radioablation by MR examination, including diffusion-weighted MRI, dynamic Gd-enhanced MRI, MR spectroscopy, and T2-weighted MRI early after SBRT is very difficult. We have been developing the free radical imaging methods using Dynamic Nuclear Polarization (DNP)-MRI with nitroxyl radicals as a redox probe (e.g., 4-Methacryloyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl (Tempo methacrylate; TempoMC)). In this study, we examined the possibility of in vivo spatiotemporal visualization of SBRT for cardiac radioablation to the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) based on redox reaction by in vivo DNP-MRI. All animal procedures were approved by institutional animal care and use committee and performed in full compliance with its guidelines. This study was conducted with two approaches. First, four mini pigs underwent electrophysiology assessment using electroanatomic mapping (EAM) before and 3 months after SBRT with single-fraction doses of 25 Gy. The target of CTI was defined by cardiologist. We defined the planning target volume (PTV): the internal margin (IM) + set up margin (SM) = SI 15 mm, AP 10mm, LR 10 mm were added to the target. Radiotherapy plans were created by the software used in daily clinical practice. Second, free radical imaging by low filed type of DNP-MRI was performed on the four mice before and after 25 Gy and 10 Gy irradiation to whole heart. ESR signal measurements were also performed. A total dose of 25 Gy was successfully delivered to PTV in a single procedure in all mini pigs. EAM visualized the irradiated site and confirmed clockwise conduction block across the CTI. Although routine MRI could not detect the cardiac radiation injury clearly, the four mice of heart were well delineated on MRI and clearly visualized by DNP-MRI. DNP-MRI signal of TempoMC were decreased depending on prescribed irradiation dose. These data demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SBRT for creating conduction block across the CTI in mini pigs. Although to identify and assess the irradiated site by routine MR examination was impossible, the free radical imaging methods using Dynamic Nuclear Polarization (DNP)-MRI with TempoMC could be a promising successful method for the assessment of cardiac radioablation. This new quantum image by DNP-MRI will open the possibility of treating cardiac arrhythmias by SBRT safety and noninvasively.

Prospective Dosimetric Comparison Study Between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer

Although volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) boost can achieve highly conformal dose distributions for cervical cancer, VMAT has the disadvantage of requiring set-up and organ motion margins. This study prospectively recruited patients with the cervical cancer and compared VMAT plan with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) plan. All patients treated with ICBT for locally advanced cervical cancer between April 2020 and September 2022 were enrolled. Patients had whole-pelvis radiotherapy, followed by CT scans with and without the tandem and ovoid in the same session (for the planning of ICBT and VMAT, respectively). ICBT planning characterizes the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) as the target volume and the bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon and small bowel loop as the organ at risk (OAR). VMAT planning defines the HR-CTV + 3 mm as the target volume and bladder, rectum + 3 mm (planning organ at risk volume (PRV) rectum), sigmoid colon + 3 mm (PRV sigmoid) and bowel bag as the OAR to account for set-up and organ motion. ICBT and VMAT plans were optimized for maximal dose received by at least 90% (D90%) of the target volume without impairing the dose constraints for the OARs. The prescribed dose (PD) was 26 Gy in 4 fractions. The dose constraints were determined as 25.2 Gy for D2 ml in the bladder and 20 Gy for D2 ml in the other OARs. The D90% and D100% of the target volume and D2 ml of OARs were compared between 2 plans using paired two-tailed Student's t test. Seventeen patients were enrolled. Dose and volume parameters for the 2 plans are shown in Table 1. Of the 17 patients, D90% of the target volume received 100% PD in 4 cases with ICBT plans, in 6 cases for VMAT plans, and in 2 cases with both methods. For D90% of the target volume, ICBT plans were greater than VMAT plans in 4 cases, with a maximum difference of 5.6 Gy (ICBT: 26.0 Gy, SBRT: 20.4 Gy). VMAT plans were higher than ICBT plans in 11 cases, with a maximum difference of 10.3 Gy (ICBT: 14.5 Gy, SBRT: 24.8 Gy). The dose-limiting OARs to attain D90% of target volume were bladder in 12 cases and small bowel loop in 1 case for ICBT plans, while PRV rectum in 11 cases, PRV sigmoid in 4 cases and bowel bag in 1 case for VMAT plans. This prospective study with 17 ICBT-eligible patients revealed D90% of the target volume demonstrated no substantial difference between VMAT and ICBT plans, while D100% showed a significant increase in VMAT plan compared to ICBT plan. Even with a set-up and organ motion margins on the HR-CTV and OARs, VMAT may have a dosimetric advantage over ICBT if the target geometry is complicated and close to the OARs.

The institutional experience of the implementing 4DCT in NSCLC radiotherapy planning.

The study was to evaluate the effectiveness of dose distribution of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) simulation. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were contoured in all 10 respiratory phases of 4DCT in 30 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Both 3D and 4D treatment plans were made individually for each patient using the planning volume (PTV). The PTV3D was taken from a single CTV plus the recommended margin, and the PTV4D was taken from the 4D internal target volume, including all 10 CTVs plus the setup margins. The mean PTV was 460 ± 179 (69-820) cm3 for 3DCT and 401 ± 167 (127-854) cm3 for 4DCT (p = 0.0018). The dose distribution (DD) of organs at risk, especially the lungs, was lower for the 4DCT simulation. The V5%, V10%, and V20% of the total lung dose for 4DCT were significantly lower for the 3DCT. However, lung V30% the heart, esophagus, and spinal cord were not significantly different. In addition, the conformity index and the dose heterogeneity index of the PTV were not significantly different. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the lung and heart was significantly lower for 4DCT than for 3DCT. The 4DCT simulation gives better results on the NTCP. The organs at risk, especially the lungs, receive a significantly lower DD compared with the 3DCT. The conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI) and the DD to the heart, spinal cord, and esophagus were not significantly different between the two techniques.

Defining the Planning Tumor Volume by analyzing Setup of Head &amp; Neck (H&amp;N) Carcinoma in Radiotherapy

Aim: To find out the setup error of Head and Neck patients treated with Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on CLINAC-IX at Center for Nuclear medicine and Radiotherapy (CENAR) Quetta by using inbuilt electronic portal imaging device (EPID) to obtain the setup margin for clinical investigation. Methods: A total of 35 patients of head &amp; neck carcinoma were treated with Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) total dose of 69.96Gy in 33 fractions at CENAR from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2022 were consider this retrospective study. PTV margin for different directions (Vertical, lateral &amp;Longitudinal) were analyzed by Van Herk’s formula Results: Data analyzed for calculating the mean displacement in X (Lateral), Y (Longitudinal) and Z (Vertical) directions, from where the mean systematic and random errors derived. These shifts (displacements) used for calculation of the final PTV margins by using Van Herk’s formula. The calculated mean (±SD) systematic errors in the Z (Vertical), X (Lateral) and Y (Longitudinal) and directions were 0.10cm, 0.06cm, and 0.07cm and the mean(±SD) random errors were 0.01cm, 0.004cm and 0.01cm respectively. Conclusion: In our study, less than3 mm is an optimal margin for GTV- PTV for head and neck cancer patients. The reduction in setup margin helps in prognosis of treatment results, reduce radiation related complication in normal tissue and reduce the local recurrence. Imaging guidance techniques is effective tool for setup margin. Keywords: Electronic Portal Imaging Device, Van Herk Equation, Systematic Error, Random Error, Head &amp; Neck Carcinoma,

Comparative dosimetric, setup margin, and treatment time analysis between ring gantry and C-Arm linear accelerators for VMAT-based craniospinal irradiation plans.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric and treatment delivery characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy technique (VMAT)-based craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) between ring gantry Halcyon (HAL) and C-arm based Novalis Tx (NTx) linear accelerator. Set-up margin and treatment delivery time for both machines were also taken into account. Fifteen patients, 4 females and 11 males treated between March 2019 and February 2022 within the age group 4-56 years simulated in the supine position and were planned for multiple isocentre VMAT technique in ring gantry Halcyon and C-Arm Novalis linear accelerator for 6FFF and 6 MV flatten beam energy. The number of isocenters was the same in both the machines, usually three for adult adolescent age group patients and two for pediatric patients. Total on-couch time and the patient positional shift were captured for each isocenter during each session of treatment. Margins were calculated using Herk's formula of margin = 2.5Σ +0.7σ. Dosimetry, on-couch time, and set-up margin were compared between two competing arms. Ninety-five percent of PTV coverage (P = 0.333), volume receiving 107% (P = 0.676), total MU (P = 0.818) in both the arms were comparable and statically insignificant. Low-dose spillage such as D20% (P = 0.212) and D50% (P = 0.008) was lesser in HAL comparable to NTx. CI and HI were statically insignificant. Out of 26 organs at risk (OAR), only 3 organs showed a statically significant dose difference. The mean and maximum setup margin in any linear direction was 0.45 and 0.53 cm for HAL and 0.37 and 0.56 cm for NTx and, variation was statistically insignificant (0.23 < P < 0.47). On-couch time was 4.0 ± 5.5 min lesser for HAL and the difference in on-couch time between the two arms was statistically different. Even though the majority of the delivery parameters such as gantry speed, dose rate, beam characteristic (flatten or unflatten), MLC width, and speed between the ring gantry HAL and C-arm NTx linear accelerators were distinctly different, they offered no or minimal difference in the dose distribution and in the setup margin. HAL gives a faster treatment time delivery, which could be crucial for some selective cases such as patients receiving treatment under general anesthesia.

Potential margin reduction in prostate cancer proton therapy with prompt gamma imaging for online treatment verification.

The potential of proton therapy is currently limited due to large safety margins. We estimated the potential reduction of clinical margins when using prompt gamma imaging (PGI) for online treatment verification of prostate cancer. For two adaptive scenarios a potential reduction relative to clinical practice was evaluated. The use of a trolley-mounted PGI system for online treatment verification to trigger an adaptation reduced the current range margins from 7mm to 3mm. In a case example, the dose reduction due to reduced range margins was substantially larger compared to reduced setup margins when using pre-treatment volumetric imaging.

Large anatomical changes in head-and-neck cancers – A dosimetric comparison of online and offline adaptive proton therapy

PurposeThis work evaluates an online adaptive (OA) workflow for head-and-neck (H&N) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and compares it with full offline replanning (FOR) in patients with large anatomical changes. MethodsIMPT treatment plans are created retrospectively for a cohort of eight H&N cancer patients that previously required replanning during the course of treatment due to large anatomical changes. Daily cone-beam CTs (CBCT) are acquired and corrected for scatter, resulting in 253 analyzed fractions. To simulate the FOR workflow, nominal plans are created on the planning-CT and delivered until a repeated-CT is acquired; at this point, a new plan is created on the repeated-CT. To simulate the OA workflow, nominal plans are created on the planning-CT and adapted at each fraction using a simple beamlet weight-tuning technique. Dose distributions are calculated on the CBCTs with Monte Carlo for both delivery methods. The total treatment dose is accumulated on the planning-CT. ResultsDaily OA improved target coverage compared to FOR despite using smaller target margins. In the high-risk CTV, the median D98 degradation was 1.1 % and 2.1 % for OA and FOR, respectively. In the low-risk CTV, the same metrics yield 1.3 % and 5.2 % for OA and FOR, respectively. Smaller setup margins of OA reduced the dose to all OARs, which was most relevant for the parotid glands. ConclusionDaily OA can maintain prescription doses and constraints over the course of fractionated treatment, even in cases of large anatomical changes, reducing the necessity for manual replanning in H&N IMPT.

A Report of Radiotherapy Setup Errors in Pelvic and Mediastinal Tumors

Introduction: Radiation therapy as an important step in treatment of cancer which demands accuracy. Patient setup is a challenging job in the radiation therapy process. The Variation in random setup error for specific sites is different among clinics, even from one radiation therapist technologist to other in a same clinic. The purpose of this study is to investigate and report about the setup margins in the pelvic and mediastinal sites. Method &amp;Material: 34 patients (20 males and 14 females) in the supine and prone positions (24 supine positions and 10 prone positions) were selected. Internal protocol and custom-made positioning devices were utilized. The variation of Anterior-Posterior movements (AP) in daily setup is recorded based on the vertical information which is shown on the arian 2100C/D Linear Accelerators monitor. The correlation between body type, position and treatment cases compares with the mean errors. Conclusion: The highest random error for setup is attributed to mediastinal tumor (=0.3 cm), and the highest systematic error is dedicated to cervix (=1.4 cm). The population systematic error (=1.25) is defined as the standard deviation of means of patients(Σ). In centers with lack of image-guided facilities or centers with high loaded patients the setup process should be accurate enough to limit setup error probabilities.

Comparative analysis of setup margin calculation in cone beam CT, by van Herk formula, using two different image registration methods

ABSTRACT Introduction: This study aimed to quantify the difference in setup margin in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) setup imaging, utilising the van Herk formula for two different image registration methods. Two alternative techniques of registration, bony landmark (BL) matching and soft tissue matching (ST) for head and neck cancer patients, were investigated. Methods: This study included 30 head and neck cancer patients who received a simultaneous integrated boost of 54–60–66 Gy in 30 fractions, using volumetric modulated arc treatment. A total of 867 CBCT images were acquired during patient setup and further analysed for setup margin calculation. A region of interest was described using a clip box between the reference and CBCT image to calculate the patient’s positional inaccuracy in three translational directions, X, Y and Z, where X was mediolateral, Y was the cranial-caudal, and Z was the anterior-posterior direction in the patient-based coordinate system, respectively. The shifts were captured by altering the BL and ST matching, and the setup margin was calculated using the van Herk formula (=2·5Σ + 0·7σ where Σ was the systematic and σ was the random error). Results: The difference between bony and ST matching in most cases was observed to be 1·4 mm in all translational directions at a 95% confidence interval and &lt;1° in all rotational directions. The rotational error was found to be below the action level (±3°); hence, no corrections related to rotational error were made. The translational setup margin for bone and ST-based registration was X (BL) = 4·6 mm, X (ST) = 4·4 mm, Y (BL) = 6·3 mm, Y (ST) = 4·7 mm, Z (BL) = 3·0 mm, Z (ST) = 3·6mm. Conclusion: Two distinct registration approaches for head-neck patient setup did not yield any significant difference in the setup margin calculation. A suitable approach for CBCT and reference CT registration technique was required for the setup margin calculation. Confusion in selecting the correct image registration procedure can result in incorrect treatment execution. The compatibility of the two registration approaches was established in this study. Image fusion was neutralised before the second match (ST) to avoid hysteresis. For setup verification using CBCT for the head and neck region, both bone and ST registration were compatible for setup verification.