Systematic Setup Errors Research Articles

Optimal correction strategies for reducing systematic and random setup errors and their impact on treatment margins

Optimal correction strategies for reducing systematic and random setup errors and their impact on treatment margins

A protocol for the reduction of systematic patient setup errors with minimal portal imaging workload

Purpose: To evaluate a new off-line patient setup correction protocol that minimizes the required number of portal images and perform a comparison with currently applied protocols. Methods and Materials: We compared two types of off-line protocols: (a) the widely applied shrinking action level (SAL) protocol, in which the setup error, averaged over the measured treatment fractions, is compared with a threshold that decreases with the number of measurements, to decide if a correction is necessary; and (b) a new “no-action-level” (NAL) protocol, which simply calculates the mean setup error over a fixed number of fractions, and always corrects for it. The performance of the protocols was evaluated by applying them to (a) a database of measured setup errors from 600 prostate patients (with, on average, 10 imaged fractions/patient) and (b) Monte Carlo-generated setup error distributions for various values of the population systematic and random errors. Results: The NAL protocol achieved a significantly higher accuracy than the SAL protocol for a similar workload in terms of image acquisition and analysis, as well as in setup corrections. The SAL protocol required approximately three times more images than the NAL protocol to obtain the same reduction of systematic errors. Application of the NAL protocol to measured setup errors confirmed its efficacy in systematic error reduction in a real patient population. Conclusion: The NAL protocol performed much more efficiently than the SAL protocol for both actually measured and simulated setup data. The resulting decrease in required portal images not only reduces workload, but also dose to healthy tissue, if dedicated large fields are required for portal imaging (double exposure).

The effect of breathing and set-up errors on the cumulative dose to a lung tumor

Background and purpose: To assess the impact of both set-up errors and respiration-induced tumor motion on the cumulative dose delivered to a clinical target volume (CTV) in lung, for an irradiation based on current clinically applied field sizes. Materials and methods: A cork phantom, having a 50 mm spherically shaped polystyrene insertion to simulate a gross tumor volume (GTV) located centrally in a lung was irradiated with two parallel opposed beams. The planned 95% isodose surface was conformed to the planning target volume (PTV) using a multi leaf collimator. The resulting margin between the CTV and the field edge was 16 mm in beam's eye view. A dose of 70 Gy was prescribed. Dose area histograms (DAHs) of the central plane of the CTV (GTV+5 mm) were determined using radiographic film for different combinations of set-up errors and respiration-induced tumor motion. The DAHs were evaluated using the population averaged tumor control probability (TCP pop) and the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) model. Results: Compared with dose volume histograms of the entire CTV, DAHs overestimate the impact of tumor motion on tumor control. Due to the choice of field sizes a large part of the PTV will receive a too low dose resulting in an EUD of the central plane of the CTV of 68.9 Gy for the static case. The EUD drops to 68.2, 66.1 and 51.1 Gy for systematic set-up errors of 5, 10 and 15 mm, respectively. For random set-up errors of 5, 10 and 15 mm (1 SD), the EUD decreases to 68.7, 67.4 and 64.9 Gy, respectively. For similar amplitudes of respiration-induced motion, the EUD decreases to 68.8, 68.5 and 67.7 Gy, respectively. For a clinically relevant scenario of 7.5 mm systematic set-up error, 3 mm random set-up error and 5 mm amplitude of breathing motion, the EUD is 66.7 Gy. This corresponds with a tumor control probability TCP pop of 41.7%, compared with 50.0% for homogeneous irradiation of the CTV to 70 Gy. Conclusion: Systematic set-up errors have a dominant effect on the cumulative dose to the CTV. The effect of breathing motion and random set-up errors is smaller. Therefore the gain of controlling breathing motion during irradiation is expected to be small and efforts should rather focus on minimizing systematic errors. For the current clinically applied field sizes and a clinically relevant combination of set-up errors and breathing motion, the EUD of the central plane of the CTV is reduced by 3.3 Gy, at maximum, relative to homogeneous irradiation of the CTV to 70 Gy, for our worst case scenario.

Systematic and random set-up errors in patients having postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer

Systematic and random set-up errors in patients having postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer

Analysis and reduction of 3D systematic and random setup errors during the simulation and treatment of lung cancer patients with CT-based external beam radiotherapy dose planning

Purpose: To determine the magnitude of the errors made in (a) the setup of patients with lung cancer on the simulator relative to their intended setup with respect to the planned treatment beams and (b) in the setup of these patients on the treatment unit. To investigate how the systematic component of the latter errors can be reduced with an off-line decision protocol for setup corrections. Methods and Materials: For 39 patients with CT planning, digitally-reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were calculated for anterior-posterior and lateral beams. Retrospectively, the position of the visible anatomy relative to the planned isocenter was compared with the corresponding position on the digitized simulator radiographs using contour match software. The setup accuracy at the treatment unit relative to the simulator setup was measured for 40 patients for at least 5 fractions per patient in 2 orthogonal beams with the aid of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Setup corrections were applied, based on an off-line decision protocol, with parameters derived from knowledge of the random setup errors in the studied patient group. Results: The standard deviations (SD) of the simulator setup errors relative to the CT planning setup in the lateral, longitudinal, and anterior-posterior directions were 4.0, 2.8, and 2.5 mm, respectively. The SD of rotations around the anterior-posterior axis was 1.6° and around the left-right axis 1.3°. The setup error at the treatment unit had a small random component in all three directions (1 SD = 2 mm). The systematic components were larger, particularly in the longitudinal direction (1 SD = 3.6 mm), but were reduced with the decision protocol to 1 SD < 2 mm with, on average, 0.6 setup correction per patient. Conclusion: Setup errors at the simulator, which become systematic errors if the simulation defines the reference setup, were comparable to the systematic setup errors at the treatment unit in case no off-line protocol would have been applied. Hence, the omission of a separate simulation step can reduce systematic errors as efficiently as the application of an off-line correction protocol during treatment. The random errors were sufficiently small to make an off-line protocol feasible.

Set-up verification using portal imaging; review of current clinical practice

In this review of current clinical practice of set-up error verification by means of portal imaging, we firstly define the various types of set-up errors using a consistent nomenclature. The different causes of set-up errors are then summarized. Next, the results of a large number of studies regarding patient set-up verification are presented for treatments of patients with head and neck, prostate, pelvis, lung and breast cancer, as well as for mantle field/total body treatments. This review focuses on the more recent studies in order to assess the criteria for good clinical practice in patient positioning. The reported set-up accuracy varies widely, depending on the treatment site, method of immobilization and institution. The standard deviation (1 SD, mm) of the systematic and random errors for currently applied treatment techniques, separately measured along the three principle axes, ranges from 1.6–4.6 and 1.1–2.5 (head and neck), 1.0–3.8 and 1.2–3.5 (prostate), 1.1–4.7 and 1.1–4.9 (pelvis), 1.8–5.1 and 2.2–5.4 (lung), and 1.0–4.7 and 1.7–14.4 (breast), respectively. Recommendations for procedures to quantify, report and reduce patient set-up errors are given based on the studies described in this review. Using these recommendations, the systematic and random set-up errors that can be achieved in routine clinical practice can be less than 2.0 mm (1 SD) for head and neck, 2.5 mm (1 SD) for prostate, 3.0 mm (1 SD) for general pelvic and 3.5 mm (1 SD) for lung cancer treatment techniques.

An off-line strategy for constructing a patient-specific planning target volume in adaptive treatment process for prostate cancer

Purpose: To improve the efficacy of dose delivery and dose escalation for external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer, an off-line strategy for constructing a patient-specific planning target volume is developed in the adaptive radiotherapy process using image feedback of target location and patient setup position. Materials and Methods: We hypothesize that a patient-specific confidence-limited planning target volume (cl-PTV), constructed using an initial sequence of daily measurements of internal target motion and patient setup error, exists and ensures that the clinical target volume (CTV) in the prostate cancer patient receives the prescribed dose within a predefined dose tolerance. A patient-specific bounding volume to correct for target location and compensate for target random motion was first constructed using the convex hull of the first k days of CT measurements. The bounding volume and the initial days of CT measurements were minimized based on a predefined dosimetric criterion. The hypothesis was tested using multiple daily CT images by mimicking the actual treatment of both conventional 4-field-box and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on each of 30 patients with prostate cancer. For each patient, a patient-specific setup margin was also applied to the bounding volume to form the final cl-PTV. This margin was determined using the random setup error predicted from the initial days of portal imaging measurements and the residuals after correcting for the systematic setup error. Results: The bounding volume constructed using daily CT measurements in the first week of treatment are adequate for the conventional beam delivery to achieve maximum dose reduction in the CTV of 2% or less of the prescription dose, for at least 80% of patients ( p = 0.08), and 4.5% or less for 95% of patients ( p = 0.1). However, for IMRT delivery, 2 weeks of daily CT measurements are required to achieve a similar level of the dosimetric criterion, otherwise the maximum dose reduction of 7%, on average, in the CTV is expected. Furthermore, the patient-specific setup margin required for the IMRT treatment is at least twice larger than that for the conventional treatment, to maintain the same dosimetric criterion. As compared to the conventional PTV, the volume of cl-PTV is significantly reduced, while maintaining the same dosimetric criterion. Conclusion: The cl-PTV for prostate treatment can be constructed within the first week of treatment using the feedback of imaging measurements. The cl-PTV has the capability to exclude the systematic variation and compensate for the patient-specific random variation on target location and patient setup position. This implies that in the current off-line image feedback adaptive treatment process, a single plan modification can be performed within the second week of treatment to improve the efficacy of dose delivery and dose escalation for external beam therapy of prostate cancer.

Errors from field placement and organ motion during conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Purpose. To evaluate the effect of positioning errors from setup and from prostate motion during escalated dose conformal prostate irradiation for localised prostate cancer. Methods. Thirteen patients with localised prostate cancer had lateral portal films taken three times weekly during escalated dose conformal prostate radiotherapy. Field placement errors were measured by matching corresponding bony landmarks to the simulator film. Prostate motion at the base, mid-gland and apex was measured by imaging the displacement of 3 gold fiducial markers implanted into the prostate before therapy. From these measurements a planning target volume (PTV) was derived that allowed for both the prostate motion and field placement errors.Results. The random isocentre positioning error was 2.2 mm (range 0.2–7.3 mm), and the mean systematic isocentre positioning error was 1.4 mm (range 0.2–3.3 mm).Mean prostatic motion at the base was anterior 1.5 mm (SD 2.9 mm, range posterior 11.8 mm to anterior 16.8 mm), and superior 0.2 mm (SD 2.1 mm, range inferior 6.8 mm to superior 10.8 mm). At mid-gland it was anterior 0.6 mm (SD 2.4 mm, range posterior 7.2 mm to anterior 9.2 mm). At the apex it was posterior 0.3 mm (SD 2.1 mm, range posterior 7.9 mm to anterior 9.4 mm), and superior 0.5 mm (SD 2.1 mm, range inferior 6.7 mm to superior 10.2 mm).The margin of PTV about the prostate needed to give a 99% probability of the GTV remaining within the 95% isodose line during the course of therapy for these patients is superior 5.8 mm, and inferior 5.6 mm. In the anterior and posterior direction, this margin is 7.2 mm at the base, 6.5 mm at the mid-gland and 6.0 mm at the apex.Conclusions. Systematic setup errors were minimised by patient immobilisation and real-time corrections of setup errors. Prostate motion contributes the largest source of error, and this motion is greatest at the base of the gland compared to the apex. A non-uniform planning margin will improve target coverage while limiting normal tissue exposure. Fiducial markers implanted in the prostate improved quality assurance for radiation delivery by allowing confirmation of organ position within the treatment field over the course of therapy.

Towards an evidence based treatment technique in prostate radiotherapy

There is a large evidence base around prostate cancer. Most of this concentrates on which stages of the disease to treat with which modality. The purpose of this study is to try and determine from the literature an evidence based radiotherapy treatment technique. The evidence is examined on prostate and patient motion, the effect of bladder and rectum filling, patient positioning and error detection with portal imaging. The technique derived is patient supine or prone with empty bladder and bowel. A simple leg immobilisation device is recommended, with set-up to couch height. The required margins are 13.2 mm laterally, 18 mm anterior-posteriorly and 21.3 mm cranio-caudally using a three-dimensional margin recipe. It is shown that an intensive portal imaging routine is required to demonstrate that systematic set-up errors are below 5 mm.

Radiotherapy of pelvic malignancies: impact of two types of rigid immobilisation devices on localisation errors

Background and purpose: To determine the distribution of set-up errors for patients treated with and without two rigid partial immobilisation devices for pelvic malignancies. Materials and methods: 30 patients receiving pelvic irradiation with a four field technique underwent a total of 524 portal films. The patients are divided into 3 cohorts of 10 patients. The first cohort is treated on a standard treatment couch without immobilisation device (NI); the second and third cohorts are treated with a custom-made immobilisation device used in an attempt to improve set-up accuracy: an Alpha-Cradle mattress 1 1 Smithers Medical Product, Inc. (AM) or an Orfit cast 2 2 Orfit industries. (OC). Set-up deviations are analysed in the X, Y, Z directions of a fixed coordinate system, corresponding to the lateral, cranio-caudal and antero-posterior direction, respectively. Results: Considering the percentage of discrepancies ≤ 5 mm between the simulation films and the portal films as a measure of set-up accuracy, immobilisation devices seem to increase accuracy: 88.5% ( X) 79% ( Y) and 100% ( Z) with AM; 84% ( X– Y), 97.5% ( Z) with OC and only 76.5% ( X), 40% ( Y) and 65.5% ( Z) for NI. The distribution of the systematic set-up errors for the three patient cohorts, defined as the mean patient displacement for the treatment course, had a mean and a standard deviation of (0.7±2.7) mm in the X-axis, (−5.5±2.6) mm in the Y-axis and (−0.9±2.2) mm in the Z-axis when no immobilisation is added; (0.8±1.7) mm, (−2±2.7) mm and (0.3±0.4) mm for the Alpha-Cradle group; (0.3±1.4) mm, (0.5±1.1) mm and (0.5±0.6) mm for the Orfit cast group. The distribution of random errors about the mean approximated a normal distribution and the standard deviations are 4.4 mm ( X), 4.2 mm ( Y) and 4.8 mm ( Z) for NI; 3.3, 3.5 and 2.5 mm for the AM; 3.4, 3.3 and 2.7 mm for the OC. Conclusions: The two rigid immobilisation devices improve the reproducibility of a given pelvic field but there is a small benefit comparative to the cost and the cumbersome place of the devices.

What margins should be added to the clinical target volume in radiotherapy treatment planning for lung cancer?

Background: The planning target volume in radiotherapy treatment planning takes into account both movements of the clinical target volume (CTV) and set-up deviations. Materials and methods: A group of patients who received radiotherapy for lung cancer were studied. In order to measure the CTV movements due to respiration and other internal organ motions, fluoroscopy was performed for 20 patients. To study the accuracy and reproducibility of patient and beam set-up, 553 electronic portal images from 20 patients were evaluated. Discrepancies between planned and actual field positions were measured and the systematic and random errors were identified. The combined effect of these geometrical variations was evaluated. Results: The average CTV movement with quiet respiration was about 2.4 mm in the medio-lateral and dorso-ventral directions. Movement in the cranio-caudal direction was on average 3.9 mm with a range of 0–12 mm. The systematic set-up errors were on average 2.0 mm in the transversal plane and 3.0 mm in the cranio-caudal direction. The random errors can be described by their standard deviations of 3.2 and 2.6 mm. In this study, the combined effect of the two parameters (CTV movement and set-up deviations) varied between 7.5 and 10.3 mm in different anatomical directions. Conclusions: In our daily clinical routine, we use a margin of 11 mm in the transversal plane and 15 mm cranially and caudally, also taking into account other unquantified variations and uncertainties.

The use of adaptive radiation therapy to reduce setup error: a prospective clinical study

Purpose: Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART) is a feedback treatment process that optimizes a patient’s treatment according to the patient specific information measured during the course of treatment. Utilizing an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and a computer-controlled multileaf collimator (MLC), the ART process is currently being implemented in our clinic to improve the treatment accuracy by compensating for the treatment setup error. A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of the ART process for clinical use. Methods and Materials: The prospective study included 20 patients who underwent conventional radiotherapy on a linear accelerator equipped with an EPID and a MLC. No specific changes were made in the routine clinical procedures except daily portal images were obtained for each treatment field. Two-dimensional setup error for each treatment field was then measured offline using a software tool. The measured setup errors from initial treatment days were used to predict the systematic and random setup errors for each treatment field. An adjustment decision was made if the predicted systematic error was larger than or equal to 2 mm. Furthermore, the treatment field was extended if the predicted random setup error could not be effectively compensated by the predefined treatment setup margin. Instead of the conventional approach of patient repositioning, setup adjustment was implemented by reshaping the MLC field. The entire process from measuring setup error to reshaping the MLC field was performed offline through a computer network. After completion of a patient’s treatment, the systematic and random setup errors after adjustment were compared with those predicted prior to the adjustment. The accuracy of the adjustment, and the reliability and stability of the process were analyzed. Results: Treatment fields of 13 patients were modified to correct for systematic errors. The mean systematic error was 4 mm with a range of 2 to 7 mm before adjustment. It was reduced to 0.5 mm with a range of 0.2 to 1.4 mm after adjustment. There was no significant difference in random setup errors before and after adjustment. The ART process was found to be stable, as more than 95% of patient specific setup margins were predictable within 1 mm using the first four to nine fractions of treatment, confirming the feasibility of treatment plan reoptimization with the ART process. Conclusions: The prospective study demonstrates that the ART process can be effectively implemented in routine clinical practice to improve treatment accuracy. This process is also ready to be further extended to reoptimize the treatment plan by incorporating the predicted patient specific setup variation.

Electronic Portal Imaging with On-Line Correction of Setup Error in Thoracic Irradiation: Clinical Evaluation

Purpose: To analyze setup errors and the feasibility of their on-line correction using electronic portal imaging in the irradiation of lung tumors. Methods and Materials: Sixteen patients with lung cancer were irradiated through opposed anteroposterior fields. Localization images of anteroposterior fields were recorded with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Using an in-house developed algorithm for on-line comparison of portal images setup errors were measured and a correction of table position was performed with a remote couch control prior to treatment. In addition, residual errors were measured on the EPID verification image. Global and individual mean and standard deviation of setup errors were calculated and compared. The feasibility of the procedure was assessed measuring intra- and interobserver variability, influence of organ movement, reproducibility of error measurement, the extra time fraction needed for measuring and adjusting and the fraction of dose needed for imaging. Results: In two setups the procedure could not be finished normally due to problems inherent to the procedure. The reproducibility, intraobserver variability, and influence of organ movements were each described by a distribution with a mean value less than or equal to 1 mm and a standard deviation (SD) of less than 1.5 mm. The interobserver variability showed to be a little bit larger (mean: 0.3 mm, SD: 1.7 mm). The mean time to perform the irradiation of the anteroposterior field was 4 ± 1 min. The mean time for the measurement and correction procedure approximated 2.5 min. The mean extra time fraction was 65 ± 24% (1 SD) with more than half of this coming from the error measurement. The dose needed for generation of EPID images was 5.9 ± 1.4% of total treatment dose. The mean and SD of setup errors were, respectively, 0.1 and 4.5 mm for longitudinal and −2.0 and 5.7 mm for transversal errors. Of 196 measured translational errors 120 (61%) exceeded the adjustment criteria. For individual patients systematic and random setup errors can be as high as, respectively, 15.8 and 7.5 mm. Mean residual error and SD were for longitudinal direction 0.08 and 1.2 mm and for transversal direction −0.9 and 1.0 mm (pooled data). For individuals, the mean residual errors were smaller than 1 mm, with a typical SD per patient of less than 2 mm. Conclusion: Setup errors in thoracic radiation therapy are clinically important. On-line correction can be performed accurately with an objective measurement tool, although this prolongs the irradiation procedure for one field with 65%.

P-3-402 - Long-term results of stereotactic operations in patients with torsion dystonia

To compare and assess kV and MV imaging modalities and their role in image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for head and neck cancer patients.Twelve patients receiving radical radiotherapy to the head and neck were analysed in this study. Six patients undertook MV daily online intervention and a further six patients undertook kV daily online intervention. Pre-intervention field placement data were collected from three separate observers' image match analysis for each patient. The radiotherapy collective involved in the daily online image match analysis formed the fourth observer in the study. The primary end point was to establish the difference in inter- and intra-observer variance between kV and MV imaging modalities.The range of the standard deviations of systematic set-up error for MV imaging calculated was 1.47–2.33 mm (MV) and 1.61–1.64 mm (kV) for the right–left (RL), 2.10–2.17 mm (MV) and 1.53–1.84 mm (kV) for the cranio–caudal (CC) and 1.43–1.63 mm (MV) and 1.02–1.11 mm (kV) for the anterior–posterior (AP). The mean inter-observer variance was 0.21 mm (MV) and 0.41 mm (kV) for the RL, 0.53 mm (MV) and 0.55 mm (kV) for the CC and 0.23 mm (MV) and 0.16 mm (kV) for the AP direction. Intra-observer mean variance was in the order of 0.60 mm (MV) and 0.16 mm (kV) for the RL, 1.41 mm (MV) and 0.05 mm (kV) for the CC and 1.41 mm (MV) and 0.08 mm (kV) for the AP.The data in this study suggest both inter- and intra-observer consistency across kV and MV imaging modalities were comparable. However, it is felt that the improved clarity and quality of kV imaging allows all observers to analyse images in a consistent manner, identifying and acting on potential field placement moves.The introduction of kV imaging has maintained the high levels of inter- and intra-observer consistency achieved with MV imaging. This in turn further enables positive verification outcomes and supports the implementation of potential reductions in action thresholds. The increased quality, clarity and field of view offered by kV imaging have established it as the method of choice for head and neck IGRT at Radiation Oncology Queensland.

Adaptive modification of treatment planning to minimize the deleterious effects of treatment setup errors

Using daily setup variation measured from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), radiation treatment of the individual patient can be adaptively reoptimized during the course of therapy. In this study, daily portal images were retrospectively examined to: (a) determine the number of initial days of portal imaging required to give adequate prediction of the systematic and random setup errors; and (b) explore the potential of using the prediction as feedback to reoptimize the individual treatment part-way through the treatment course. Daily portal images of 64 cancer patients, whose treatment position was not adjusted during the course of treatment, were obtained from two independent clinics with similar setup procedures. Systematic and random setup errors for each patient were predicted using different numbers of initial portal measurements. The statistical confidence of the predictions was tested to determine the number of daily portal measurements needed to give reasonable predictions. Two treatment processes were simulated to examine the potential opportunity for setup margin reduction and dose escalation. The first process mimicked a conventional treatment. A constant margin was assigned to each treatment field to compensate for the average setup error of the patient population. A treatment dose was then prescribed with reference to a fixed normal tissue tolerance, and then fixed in the entire course of treatment. In the second process, the same treatment fields and prescribed dose were used only for the initial plan and treatment. After several initial days of treatments, the treatment field shape and position were assumed to be adaptively modified using a computer-controlled multileaf collimator (MLC) in light of the predicted systematic and random setup errors. The prescribed dose was then escalated until the same normal tissue tolerance, as determined in the first treatment process, was reached. The systematic setup error and the random setup error were predicted to be within +/-1 mm for the former and +/-0.5 mm for the latter at a > or = 95% confidence level using < or = 9 initial daily portal measurements. In the study, a large number of patients could be treated using a smaller field margin if the adaptive modification process were used. Simulation of the adaptive modification process for prostate treatment demonstrates that additional treatment dose could be safely applied to 64% of patients. The adaptive modification process represents a different approach for use of on-line portal images. The portal imaging information from the initial treatments is used as feedback for reoptimization of the treatment plan, rather than adjustment of the treatment setup. Results from the retrospective study show that the treatment of individual patient can be improved with the adaptive modification process.

Measurement of patient positioning errors in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of the prostate

Purpose/Objective : To determine the spatial distribution of setup errors for patients treated with six-field, three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials : Port films for 50 patients were analyzed retrospectively. The port films were digitized and compared, using image registration software, to simulator films (representing the ideal treatment position). Patient positioning uncertainty for a given setup was determined using port films from three projections, two obliques, and one lateral. A total of 1239 port films and 300 simulator films were analyzed for the study. Patient position was analyzed for out-of-plane rotations and time trends over the course of treatment. Results : The distribution of systematic setup errors for the 50 patients, defined as the mean patient displacement for the treatment course, had a mean and standard deviation (SD) of (−0.1 ± 1.9) mm, and (−0.3 ± 1.3)mm in the mediolateral (ML), superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, and (−0.1 ± 0.2) for rotational errors. The distribution of random setup errors about the mean approximated a normal distribution and the standard deviations for the population of patients in the ML, SI, and AP directions, were 2.0 mm, 1.7 mm, and 1.9 mm, respectively. The distribution of out-of-plane rotations had 1 SD of 0.9° and 0.6° about the SI and AP axes. Ten of the 50 patients demonstrated a statistically significant time trend in their setup position resulting in shifts ranging from 2 to 7 mm. Conclusions : The setup verification protocol appears to minimize systematic setup errors to a level that approaches the sensitivity of the image registration techique. The random day to day fluctuations, represented by the average values of the standard deviations, are minor in comparison to the currently used margins, which further emphasizes the effectiveness of this protocol in conjunction with the use of the immobilization device.

30 Correction of systematic patient set-up errors in 3D for head&neck treatments, based on digital portal imaging

30 Correction of systematic patient set-up errors in 3D for head&neck treatments, based on digital portal imaging

The effect of setup uncertainties on the treatment of nasopharynx cancer

Purpose : As radiation treatment techniques become more complicated, the need to understand the effect of uncertainties on dose distributions increases. This study investigates the effect of positional uncertainities for patients with nasopharynx carcinoma treated with a multiple field conformal boost technique. Three dimensional setup errors were measured for six patients and the effect on patient dose was evaluated using dose volume histograms. Methods and Materials : A method is presented for determining 3-dimensional translational and rotational setup errors by identifying anatomical landmarks on two treatment field images and their corresponding simulation images. Measurements were made on a daily basis for six patients undergoing conformal treatment. Results : The average magnitude of the tmnsiational errors was between 1.5 and 3 mm while the average distance between simulation and treatment isocenters was 5 mm. Both systematic and random setup errors were observed. Dose volume histograms incorporating these uncertainties for standard parallel opposed and conformal techniques were generated for patients experiencing random and systematic setup errors. Conclusion : The data imply that positional uncertainties effect the daily dose distributions for target and critical structures differently and that the effect may be treatment technique dependent. These results demonstrate the need to measure setup uncertainties for all sites and to develop techniques for incorporating dose uncertainties in treatment plans.

Effect of set-up error on the dose across the junction of matching cranial-spinal fields in the treatment of medulloblastoma

Purpose : The effect of systematic and stochastic setup error on the dose delivered to the gap region for the three field radiation treatment of medulloblastoma is studied. The consequences of such setup error is discussed. Methods and Materials : The treatment of medulloblastoma is typically a 3 field technique, in which two lateral cranial fields are matched with a spine field. The x-ray dose delivered to the region between the matched fields depends upon the gap size. The choice of the gap width between the cranial and spinal fields is controversial. It is currently a compromise between minimizing the risk of dose hot spots to the spine, and the associated clinical complications, as well as the magnitude of cold spots (underdosing) across the gap, with the associated risk of disease recurrence. In this paper, we examine the effect of gap width with a moving junction, refered to as “field feathering”, on the dose across the field junction for a 6MV photon beam. In addition, we have studied 129 portal films and 40 simulation films to assess the accuracy and precision of patient setup during treatment with a plan involving feathered fields. Selected landmarks observable on both portal and simulation films were identified and the variation in the distances to the field edges measured. The distribution of patient setup error was convoluted with the beam profiles for a 6MV linac. These convoluted field edges were used to obtain dose profiles across the gap region as a function of gap separation. The consequences for therapy are discussed. In addition, analysis of patient setup error on an alternative treatment involving beam modifiers to broaden the beam penumbra is discussed. Results : The magnitude of the spatial stochastic and systematic setup error was determined to be approximately three and two millimeters respectively. The dosimetric consequences of patient setup error lead to over and under dosing in the spinal gap region for the three field technique. The degree of under or over dose depends on the nature and magnitude of the patient setup error. Conclusions : The effect of patient setup error can lead to significant dosimetric errors in the dose to the gap region depending on the magnitude of the setup errors. The effective over and under dose can be compensated by the use beams modifiers such as a beam spoiler or vibrating jaws.

Objective decision-making following a portal film: The results of a pilot study

Purpose : To discriminate between random and systematic treatment setup errors using portal films. Methods and Materials : A bi-dimensional analytic technique using multiple analyses of variance based on Hotelling's T 2 statistics to derive numerical and graphical measures of daily portal film accuracy and precision has been trialed using 88 daily portal films from seven patients' treatment. Results : A demonstration is provided of how a reasonable approximation of random variation from the intended (Simulator) field center, and systematic displacement of the mean position of the portal film centers may be derived from a minimum number of portal films. If a random error as great as 10 mm exists, at least six or seven portal films are considered necessary to reliably detect and quantify the size of a systematic error. Conclusion : Our results suggest that a modest systematic error could go undetected until the end of a 5 or 6 week course of treatment if only one portal film is obtained each week. A greater number of portal films should be performed during the first week of treatment to reduce the frequency of such errors. Efforts to separate and quantify both random and systematic errors in setup are worthwhile and will lead to improvements in outcome at the individual patient level and at a departmental level in the development of quality assurance programs.