Search

Purpose We developed a system for calculating patient positional displacement between digital radiography images (DRs) and digitally reconstructed radiography images (DRRs) to reduce patient radiation exposure, minimize individual differences between radiological technologists in patient positioning, and decrease positioning time. The accuracy of this system at five sites was evaluated with clinical data from cancer patients. The dependence of calculation accuracy on the size of the region of interest (ROI) and initial position was evaluated for clinical use. Methods For a preliminary verification, treatment planning and positioning data from eight setup patterns using a head and neck phantom were evaluated. Following this, data from 50 patients with prostate, lung, head and neck, liver, or pancreatic cancer (n = 10 each) were evaluated. Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the results calculated by our system and the reference positions were assessed. The reference positions were manually determined by two radiological technologists to best‐matching positions with orthogonal DRs and DRRs in six axial directions. The ROI size dependence was evaluated by comparing RMSEs for three different ROI sizes. Additionally, dependence on initial position parameters was evaluated by comparing RMSEs for four position patterns. Results For the phantom study, the average (± standard deviation) translation error was 0.17 ± 0.05, rotation error was 0.17 ± 0.07, and ΔD was 0.14 ± 0.05. Using the optimal ROI size for each patient site, all cases of prostate, lung, and head and neck cancer with initial position parameters of 10 mm or under were acceptable in our tolerance. However, only four liver cancer cases and three pancreatic cancer cases were acceptable, because of low‐reproducibility regions in the ROIs. Conclusion Our system has clinical practicality for prostate, lung, and head and neck cancer cases. Additionally, our findings suggest ROI size dependence in some cases.

Highly accurate radiotherapy needs highly accurate patient positioning. At our facility, patient positioning is manually performed by radiology technicians. After the positioning, positioning error is measured by manually comparing some positions on a digital radiography image (DR) to the corresponding positions on a digitally reconstructed radiography image (DRR). This method is prone to error and can be time‐consuming because of its manual nature. Therefore, we propose an automated measuring method for positioning error to improve patient throughput and achieve higher reliability. The error between a position on the DR and a position on the DRR was calculated to determine the best matched position using the block‐matching method. The zero‐mean normalized cross‐correlation was used as our evaluation function, and the Gaussian weight function was used to increase importance as the pixel position approached the isocenter. The accuracy of the calculation method was evaluated using pelvic phantom images, and the method's effectiveness was evaluated on images of prostate cancer patients before the positioning, comparing them with the results of radiology technicians' measurements. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the calculation method for the pelvic phantom was 0.23±0.05 mm. The coefficients between the calculation method and the measurement results of the technicians were 0.989 for the phantom images and 0.980 for the patient images. The RMSE of the total evaluation results of positioning for prostate cancer patients using the calculation method was 0.32±0.18 mm. Using the proposed method, we successfully measured residual positioning errors. The accuracy and effectiveness of the method was evaluated for pelvic phantom images and images of prostate cancer patients. In the future, positioning for cancer patients at other sites will be evaluated using the calculation method. Consequently, we expect an improvement in treatment throughput for these other sites. PACS number: 87