Search

In an increasing number of clinical indications, radiotherapy with accelerated particles shows relevant advantages when compared with high energy X-ray irradiation. However, due to the finite range of ions, particle therapy can be severely compromised by setup errors and geometric uncertainties. The purpose of this work is to describe the commissioning and the design of the quality assurance procedures for patient positioning and setup verification systems at the Italian National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO). The accuracy of systems installed in CNAO and devoted to patient positioning and setup verification have been assessed using a laser tracking device. The accuracy in calibration and image based setup verification relying on in room X-ray imaging system was also quantified. Quality assurance tests to check the integration among all patient setup systems were designed, and records of daily QA tests since the start of clinical operation (2011) are presented. The overall accuracy of the patient positioning system and the patient verification system motion was proved to be below 0.5 mm under all the examined conditions, with median values below the 0.3 mm threshold. Image based registration in phantom studies exhibited sub-millimetric accuracy in setup verification at both cranial and extra-cranial sites. The calibration residuals of the OTS were found consistent with the expectations, with peak values below 0.3 mm. Quality assurance tests, daily performed before clinical operation, confirm adequate integration and sub-millimetric setup accuracy. Robotic patient positioning was successfully integrated with optical tracking and stereoscopic X-ray verification for patient setup in particle therapy. Sub-millimetric setup accuracy was achieved and consistently verified in daily clinical operation.

Purpose To compare infrared (IR) optical vs. stereoscopic X-ray technologies for patient setup in image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy. Methods and Materials Retrospective data analysis of 233 fractions in 127 patients treated with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy was performed. Patient setup at the linear accelerator was carried out by means of combined IR optical localization and stereoscopic X-ray image fusion in 6 degrees of freedom (6D). Data were analyzed to evaluate the geometric and dosimetric discrepancy between the two patient setup strategies. Results Differences between IR optical localization and 6D X-ray image fusion parameters were on average within the expected localization accuracy, as limited by CT image resolution (3 mm). A disagreement between the two systems below 1 mm in all directions was measured in patients treated for cranial tumors. In extracranial sites, larger discrepancies and higher variability were observed as a function of the initial patient alignment. The compensation of IR-detected rotational errors resulted in a significantly improved agreement with 6D X-ray image fusion. On the basis of the bony anatomy registrations, the measured differences were found not to be sensitive to patient breathing. The related dosimetric analysis showed that IR-based patient setup caused limited variations in three cases, with 7% maximum dose reduction in the clinical target volume and no dose increase in organs at risk. Conclusions In conclusion, patient setup driven by IR external surrogates localization in 6D featured comparable accuracy with respect to procedures based on stereoscopic X-ray imaging.

Aims and Background This study evaluates 3 different imaging modalities—ultrasound (US), stereoscopic X-ray imaging of implanted markers (Visicoils) (X-ray), and kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)—to assess interfraction and intrafraction localization error during conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Methods and Study Design The study population consisted of 186 consecutive prostate cancer patients treated with an image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) hypofractionated protocol using 3 techniques: 32 with X-ray, 30 with CBCT, and 124 with US. Treatment dose of 70.2 Gy was delivered in 26 fractions with a conformal dynamic arcs technique. Interfraction prostate localization errors were determined for the 3 techniques. Moreover, interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion in terms of translations and rotations, as well as residual errors, were determined with X-ray. Results The systematic and random components of the prostate localization errors were as follows: ( 1 ) with X-ray 3.0 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.7, 1.8 ± 2.3 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) directions and 1.8° ± 1.2°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, 2.7° ± 3.1°, for the yaw, roll, and pitch rotations; ( 2 ) with CBCT3.5 ± 4.2, 3.3 ± 3.3, 2.5 ± 3.1 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions; ( 3 ) with US 3.7 ± 4.7, 3.4 ± 4.3, 2.3 ± 3.5 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions. Residual errors with X-ray were less than 1 mm in all directions. Intrafraction prostate motion of less than 0.5 mm in LR and of the order of 1 mm in AP and SI directions was found. This led to a significant reduction of the margins, potentially important for dose escalation studies. Conclusions Daily on-line IGRT with stereoscopic X-ray imaging allowed a consistent PTV margin reduction considering residual interfraction prostate localization error and intrafraction motion. X-ray offers the best compromise among accuracy, reliability, dose to the patient, and time investment for daily IGRT treatment of prostate.

Objectives To compare acute toxicity of prostate cancer image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy (hypo-IGRT) with conventional fractionation without image-guidance (non-IGRT). To test the hypothesis that the potentially injurious effect of hypofractionation can be counterbalanced by the reduced irradiated normal tissue volume using IGRT approach. Materials and methods One hundred seventy-nine cT1-T2N0M0 prostate cancer patients were treated within the prospective study with 70.2 Gy/26 fractions (equivalent to 84 Gy/42 fractions, α/β 1.5 Gy) using IGRT (transabdominal ultrasound, ExacTrac X-Ray system, or cone-beam computer tomography). Their prospectively collected data were compared with data of 174 patients treated to 80 Gy/40 fractions with non-IGRT. The difference between hypo-IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts included fractionation (hypofractionation vs. conventional fractionation), margins (hypo-IGRT margins: 7 mm and 3 mm, for all but posterior margins; respectively; non-IGRT margins: 10 and 5 mm, for all but posterior margins, respectively), and use of image-guidance or not. Multivariate analysis was performed to define the tumor-, patient-, and treatment-related predictors for acute toxicity. Results All patients completed the prescribed radiotherapy course. Acute toxicity in the hypo-IGRT cohort included rectal (G1: 29.1%; G2: 11.2%; G3: 1.1%) and urinary events (G1: 33.5%; G2: 39.1%; G3: 5%). Acute toxicity in the non-IGRT patients included rectal (G1: 16.1%; G2: 6.3%) and urinary events (G1: 36.2%; G2: 20.7%; G3: 0.6%). In 1 hypo-IGRT and 2 non-IGRT patients, radiotherapy was temporarily interrupted due to acute toxicity. The incidence of mild (G1-2) rectal and bladder complications was significantly higher for hypo-IGRT ( P = 0.0014 and P P = 0.001) and higher PSA ( P = 0.046) are correlated with higher acute urinary toxicity. No independent factor was identified for acute rectal toxicity. No significant impact of IGRT system on acute toxicity was observed. Conclusions The acute toxicity rates were low and similar in both study groups with some increase in mild acute urinary injury in the hypo-IGRT patients (most probably due to the under-reporting in the retrospectively analyzed non-IGRT cohort). The higher incidence of acute bowel reactions observed in hypo-IGRT group was not significant in the multivariate analysis. Further investigation is warranted in order to exclude the bias due to the nonrandomized character of the study.

To quantify the advantages of a 6 degrees of freedom (dof) versus the conventional 3- or 4-dof correction modality for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. Eighty-five patients were fitted with 5-7 infra-red passive markers for optical localization. Data, acquired during the treatment, were analyzed retrospectively to simulate and evaluate the best approach for correcting patient misalignments. After the implementation of each correction, the new position of the target (tumor's center of mass) was estimated by means of a dedicated stereotactic algorithm. The Euclidean distance between the corrected and the planned location of target point was calculated and compared to the initial mismatching. Initial and after correction median+/-quartile displacements affecting external control points were 3.74+/-2.55 mm (initial), 2.45+/-0.91 mm (3-dof), 2.37+/-0.95 mm (4-dof), and 2.03+/-1.47 mm (6-dof). The benefit of a six-parameter adjustment was particularly evident when evaluating the results relative to the target position before and after the re-alignment. In this context, the Euclidean distance between the planned and the current target point turned to 0.82+/-1.12 mm (median+/-quartile values) after the roto-translation versus the initial displacement of 2.98+/-2.32 mm. No statistical improvements were found after 3- and 4-dof correction (2.73+/-1.22 mm and 2.60+/-1.31 mm, respectively). Angular errors were 0.09+/-0.93 degrees (mean+/-std). Pitch rotation in abdomen site showed the most relevant deviation, being -0.46+/-1.27 degrees with a peak value of 5.46 degrees . Translational misalignments were -0.68+/-2.60 mm (mean+/-std) with the maximum value of 12 mm along the cranio-caudal direction. We conclude that positioning system platforms featuring 6-dof are preferred for high precision radiation therapy. Data are in line with previous results relative to other sites and represent a relevant record in the framework of SBRT.

Purpose: To investigate size and frequency of interfractional patient setup variability in hypofractionated stereotactic extracranial radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Infrared optical 3D tracking of surface markers was applied to quantify setup variability on 51 patients. Isocenter position repeatability was assessed by means of frameless anatomic calibration and was compared with portal image evaluation. Specific data analysis allowed for compensation of patients' breathing movements and for separation of the effects of operator-dependent misalignments and respiration-induced displacements. Effects of patient position (supine vs. prone) and treatment table configuration were investigated. Results: Patient positioning assisted by the optical tracking device allowed reducing displacements of surface control points within the 3-mm range. Errors in isocenter localization were in the range of a few millimeters. This was in agreement with the portal image evaluation. Breathing motion introduced appreciable errors, which increased control points and isocenter 3D variability. This effect was significantly higher than those related to other investigated factors. Conclusions: The role of infrared optical tracking devices for patient positioning is assessed on a large patient population. Their use in the frame of high-precision radiotherapy is emphasized by the application of related methodologies for breathing phase detection and frameless isocenter localization.