Search

Purpose: With external beam radiation therapy, uncertainties in treatment planning and delivery can result in an undesirable dose distribution delivered to the patient that can compromise the benefit of treatment. Techniques including geometric margins and probabilistic optimization have been used effectively to mitigate the effects of uncertainties. However, their broad application is inconsistent and can compromise the conclusions derived from cross-technique and cross-modality comparisons., Methods and Materials: Conventional methods to deal with treatment planning and delivery uncertainties are described, and robustness analysis is presented as a framework that is applicable across treatment techniques and modalities., Results: This report identifies elements that are imperative to include when conducting a robustness analysis and describing uncertainties and their dosimetric effects., Conclusion: The robustness analysis approach described here is presented to promote reliable plan evaluation and dose reporting, particularly during clinical trials conducted across institutions and treatment modalities., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To demonstrate an efficient method for training and validation of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) system as a radiation therapy clinical trial plan quality-control system., Methods and Materials: We analyzed 86 patients with stage IB through IVA cervical cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy at 2 institutions according to the standards of the INTERTECC (International Evaluation of Radiotherapy Technology Effectiveness in Cervical Cancer, National Clinical Trials Network identifier: 01554397) protocol. The protocol used a planning target volume and 2 primary organs at risk: pelvic bone marrow (PBM) and bowel. Secondary organs at risk were rectum and bladder. Initial unfiltered dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation models were trained using all 86 plans. Refined training sets were created by removing sub-optimal plans from the unfiltered sample, and DVH estimation models… and DVH estimation models were constructed by identifying 30 of 86 plans emphasizing PBM sparing (comparing protocol-specified dosimetric cutpoints V 10 (percentage volume of PBM receiving at least 10 Gy dose) and V 20 (percentage volume of PBM receiving at least 20 Gy dose) with unfiltered predictions) and another 30 of 86 plans emphasizing bowel sparing (comparing V 40 (absolute volume of bowel receiving at least 40 Gy dose) and V 45 (absolute volume of bowel receiving at least 45 Gy dose), 9 in common with the PBM set). To obtain deliverable KBP plans, refined models must inform patient-specific optimization objectives and/or priorities (an auto-planning "routine"). Four candidate routines emphasizing different tradeoffs were composed, and a script was developed to automatically re-plan multiple patients with each routine. After selection of the routine that best met protocol objectives in the 51-patient training sample (KBP FINAL ), protocol-specific DVH metrics and normal tissue complication probability were compared for original versus KBP FINAL plans across the 35-patient validation set. Paired t tests were used to test differences between planning sets., Results: KBP FINAL plans outperformed manual planning across the validation set in all protocol-specific DVH cutpoints. The mean normal tissue complication probability for gastrointestinal toxicity was lower for KBP FINAL versus validation-set plans (48.7% vs 53.8%, P<.001). Similarly, the estimated mean white blood cell count nadir was higher (2.77 vs 2.49 k/mL, P<.001) with KBP FINAL plans, indicating lowered probability of hematologic toxicity., Conclusions: This work demonstrates that a KBP system can be efficiently trained and refined for use in radiation therapy clinical trials with minimal effort. This patient-specific plan quality control resulted in improvements on protocol-specific dosimetric endpoints., Competing Interests: Dr. Bosch reports personal fees from Augmenix, Inc., other from ASTRO, other from AAPM, outside the submitted work; Dr. Straube reports grants from National Institutes of Health, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Mell reports grants from U.S National Institutes of Health, grants and personal fees from Varian Medical System, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Moore reports grants from National Institute of Health, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Varian Medical Systems, during the conduct of the study; In addition, Dr. Moore has a patent US Patent 20,120,310,615 licensed to Varian Medical Systems, and a patent THREE-DIMENSIONAL RADIOTHERAPY DOSE DISTRIBUTION PREDICTION pending., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a radiation therapy (RT) contouring atlas and recommendations for women with postoperative and locally advanced vulvar carcinoma., Methods and Materials: An international committee of 35 expert gynecologic radiation oncologists completed a survey of the treatment of vulvar carcinoma. An initial set of recommendations for contouring was discussed and generated by consensus. Two cases, 1 locally advanced and 1 postoperative, were contoured by 14 physicians. Contours were compared and analyzed using an expectation-maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE), and a 95% confidence interval contour was developed. The level of agreement among contours was assessed using a kappa statistic. STAPLE contours underwent full committee editing to generate the final atlas consensus contours., Results: Analysis of the 14 contours showed substantial agreement, with kappa statistics of 0.69 and 0.64 for cases 1 and 2, respectively. There was high specificity for both cases (≥99%) and only moderate sensitivity of 71.3% and 64.9% for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Expert review and discussion generated consensus recommendations for contouring target volumes and treatment for postoperative and locally advanced vulvar cancer., Conclusions: These consensus recommendations for contouring and treatment of vulvar cancer identified areas of complexity and controversy. Given the lack of clinical research evidence in vulvar cancer radiation therapy, the committee advocates a conservative and consistent approach using standardized recommendations., Competing Interests: All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Curative intent management of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) requires gross total resection. Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) often is used as an adjuvant to surgery, but recurrence rates remain high. To enhance RT efficacy with acceptable tolerance, there is interest in delivering "boost doses" of RT to high-risk areas of gross tumor volume (HR GTV) judged to be at risk for positive resection margins. We sought to evaluate variability in HR GTV boost target volume delineation among collaborating sarcoma radiation and surgical oncologist teams., Methods: Radiation planning CT scans for three cases of RPS were distributed to seven paired radiation and surgical oncologist teams at six institutions. Teams contoured HR GTV boost volumes for each case. Analysis of contour agreement was performed using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm and kappa statistics., Results: HRGTV boost volume contour agreement between the seven teams was "substantial" or "moderate" for all cases. Agreement was best on the torso wall posteriorly (abutting posterior chest abdominal wall) and medially (abutting ipsilateral para-vertebral space and great vessels). Contours varied more significantly abutting visceral organs due to differing surgical opinions regarding planned partial organ resection., Conclusions: Agreement of RPS HRGTV boost volumes between sarcoma radiation and surgical oncologist teams was substantial to moderate. Differences were most striking in regions abutting visceral organs, highlighting the importance of collaboration between the radiation and surgical oncologist for "individualized" target delineation on the basis of areas deemed at risk and planned resection.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability in target volume and organ at risk (OAR) contour delineation for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) among 12 sarcoma radiation oncologists., Methods and Materials: Radiation planning computed tomography (CT) scans for 2 cases of RPS were distributed among 12 sarcoma radiation oncologists with instructions for contouring gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), high-risk CTV (HR CTV: area judged to be at high risk of resulting in positive margins after resection), and OARs: bowel bag, small bowel, colon, stomach, and duodenum. Analysis of contour agreement was performed using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm and kappa statistics., Results: Ten radiation oncologists contoured both RPS cases, 1 contoured only RPS1, and 1 contoured only RPS2 such that each case was contoured by 11 radiation oncologists. The first case (RPS 1) was a patient with a de-differentiated (DD) liposarcoma (LPS) with a predominant well-differentiated (WD) component, and the second case (RPS 2) was a patient with DD LPS made up almost entirely of a DD component. Contouring agreement for GTV and CTV contours was high. However, the agreement for HR CTVs was only moderate. For OARs, agreement for stomach, bowel bag, small bowel, and colon was high, but agreement for duodenum (distorted by tumor in one of these cases) was fair to moderate., Conclusions: For preoperative treatment of RPS, sarcoma radiation oncologists contoured GTV, CTV, and most OARs with a high level of agreement. HR CTV contours were more variable. Further clarification of this volume with the help of sarcoma surgical oncologists is necessary to reach consensus. More attention to delineation of the duodenum is also needed., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency and clinical severity of quality deficiencies in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol., Methods and Materials: A total of 219 IMRT patients from the high-dose arm (79.2 Gy) of RTOG 0126 were analyzed. To quantify plan quality, we used established knowledge-based methods for patient-specific dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction of organs at risk and a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model for grade ≥2 rectal complications to convert DVHs into normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). The LKB model was validated by fitting dose-response parameters relative to observed toxicities. The 90th percentile (22 of 219) of plans with the lowest excess risk (difference between clinical and model-predicted NTCP) were used to create a model for the presumed best practices in the protocol (pDVH0126,top10%). Applying the resultant model to the entire sample enabled comparisons between DVHs that patients could have received to DVHs they actually received. Excess risk quantified the clinical impact of suboptimal planning. Accuracy of pDVH predictions was validated by replanning 30 of 219 patients (13.7%), including equal numbers of presumed "high-quality," "low-quality," and randomly sampled plans. NTCP-predicted toxicities were compared to adverse events on protocol., Results: Existing models showed that bladder-sparing variations were less prevalent than rectum quality variations and that increased rectal sparing was not correlated with target metrics (dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV, respectively). Observed toxicities were consistent with current LKB parameters. Converting DVH and pDVH0126,top10% to rectal NTCPs, we observed 94 of 219 patients (42.9%) with ≥5% excess risk, 20 of 219 patients (9.1%) with ≥10% excess risk, and 2 of 219 patients (0.9%) with ≥15% excess risk. Replanning demonstrated the predicted NTCP reductions while maintaining the volume of the PTV receiving prescription dose. An equivalent sample of high-quality plans showed fewer toxicities than low-quality plans, 6 of 73 versus 10 of 73 respectively, although these differences were not significant (P=.21) due to insufficient statistical power in this retrospective study., Conclusions: Plan quality deficiencies in RTOG 0126 exposed patients to substantial excess risk for rectal complications., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To standardize upper abdominal normal organ contouring guidelines for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials., Methods and Materials: Twelve expert radiation oncologists contoured the liver, esophagus, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), stomach, duodenum, and common bile duct (CBD), and reviewed and edited 33 additional normal organ and blood vessel contours on an anonymized patient computed tomography (CT) dataset. Contours were overlaid and compared for agreement using MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA). S95 contours, defined as the binomial distribution to generate 95% group consensus contours, and normal organ contouring definitions were generated and reviewed by the panel., Results: There was excellent consistency and agreement of the liver, duodenal, and stomach contours, with substantial consistency for the esophagus contour, and moderate consistency for the GEJ and CBD contours using a Kappa statistic. Consensus definitions, detailed normal organ contouring recommendations and high-resolution images were developed., Conclusions: Consensus contouring guidelines and a CT image atlas should improve contouring uniformity in radiation oncology clinical planning and RTOG trials., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Locoregional failure remains a significant problem for patients receiving definitive radiation therapy alone or combined with chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Positron emission tomography (PET) with [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) has proven to be a valuable diagnostic and staging tool for NSCLC. This prospective study was performed to determine the impact of treatment simulation with FDG-PET and CT on radiation therapy target volume definition and toxicity profiles by comparison to simulation with computed tomography (CT) scanning alone., Methods: Twenty-six patients with Stages I-III NSCLC were studied. Each patient underwent sequential CT and FDG-PET simulation on the same day. Immobilization devices used for both simulations included an alpha cradle, a flat tabletop, 6 external fiducial markers, and a laser positioning system. A radiation therapist participated in both simulations to reproduce the treatment setup. Both the CT and fused PET/CT image data sets were transferred to the radiation treatment planning workstation for contouring. Each FDG-PET study was reviewed with the interpreting nuclear radiologist before tumor volumes were contoured. The fused PET/CT images were used to develop the three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plan. A second physician, blinded to the results of PET, contoured the gross tumor volumes (GTV) and planning target volumes (PTV) from the CT data sets, and these volumes were used to generate mock 3DCRT plans. The PTV was defined by a 10-mm margin around the GTV. The two 3DCRT plans for each patient were compared with respect to the GTV, PTV, mean lung dose, volume of normal lung receiving > or =20 Gy (V20), and mean esophageal dose., Results: The FDG-PET findings altered the AJCC TNM stage in 8 of 26 (31%) patients; 2 patients were diagnosed with metastatic disease based on FDG-PET and received palliative radiation therapy. Of the 24 patients who were planned with 3DCRT, PET clearly altered the radiation therapy volume in 14 (58%), as follows. PET helped to distinguish tumor from atelectasis in all 3 patients with atelectasis. Unsuspected nodal disease was detected by PET in 10 patients, and 1 patient had a separate tumor focus detected within the same lobe of the lung. Increases in the target volumes led to increases in the mean lung dose, V20, and mean esophageal dose. Decreases in the target volumes in the patients with atelectasis led to decreases in these normal-tissue toxicity parameters., Conclusions: Radiation targeting with fused FDG-PET and CT images resulted in alterations in radiation therapy planning in over 50% of patients by comparison with CT targeting. The increasing availability of integrated PET/CT units will facilitate the use of this technology for radiation treatment planning. A confirmatory multicenter, cooperative group trial is planned within the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Purpose: This study determines the effect on toxicity of adding neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in RTOG 94-06., Methods and Materials: Between August 1994 and February 2000, 583 eligible prostate cancer patients enrolled on the first 3 dose levels of RTOG 94-06, a Phase I/II dose escalation 3D-CRT trial. Two hundred and seven men initiated hormonal therapy (HT) between 2 to 3 months before 3D-CRT, and completed all HT no longer than 3 months after radiotherapy. Thirty-three patients receiving longer-duration HT were excluded. The 547 patients were treated at dose level I (68.4 Gy), level II (73.8 Gy), or level III (79.2 Gy). All dose prescriptions were to the minimum isodose surface encompassing the planning target volume (dose levels I and II) or the clinical target volume (dose level III). Men were stratified into three risk groups according to their relative risk of seminal vesicle invasion: <15% (Group 1) vs. >15% (Group 2), or to T stage (T1, 2 vs. T3 tumors [Group 3]). In Group 2 patients, there was a clinical target volume reduction to treat only the prostate after delivery of 55.8 Gy to a planning target volume including the seminal vesicles. All HT consisted of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist with or without a nonsteroidal anti-androgen., Results: On univariate analysis, NHT significantly increased the likelihood of Grade 2 acute genitourinary (GU) complications (22% to 32%, p = 0.009). Hormonal therapy did not have a significant univariate effect on any other acute or late toxicity. On multivariate analysis, the percent of the bladder (< or =30% vs. >30%) receiving > or = the reference dose (68.4 Gy, 73.8 Gy, or 79.2 Gy) (p = 0.0009, relative risk = 2.07, confidence interval: 1.88-2.28) was a significant predictor of acute GU effects. Although NHT was not significant in itself, in the multivariate analysis its interaction with baseline urinary status was an important factor (p = 0.011, relative risk = 4.31, confidence interval: 1.68-5.29)., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant HT did not show an independent effect on the risk of side effects after 3D-CRT in patients treated on RTOG 94-06. However, this combined modality therapy significantly increased the risk of acute GU effects compared to 3D-CRT alone in men with poor baseline urinary function.

Purpose: We present a quality assurance methodology to determine the accuracy of multimodality image registration and fusion for the purpose of conformal three-dimensional and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. Registration and fusion accuracy between any combination of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and positron emission computed tomography (PET) imaging studies can be evaluated., Methods and Materials: A commercial anthropomorphic head phantom filled with water and containing CT, MR, and PET visible targets was modified to evaluate the accuracy of multimodality image registration and fusion software. For MR and PET imaging, the water inside the phantom was doped with CuNO(3) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), respectively. Targets consisting of plastic spheres and pins were distributed throughout the cranium section of the phantom. Each target sphere had a conical-shaped bore with its apex at the center of the sphere. The pins had a conical extension or indentation at the free end. The contours of the spheres, sphere centers, and pin tips were used as anatomic landmark models for image registration, which was performed using affine coordinate-transformation tools provided in a commercial multimodality image registration/fusion software package. Four sets of phantom image studies were obtained: primary CT, secondary CT with different phantom immobilization, MR, and PET study. A novel CT, MR, and PET external fiducial marking system was also tested., Results: The registration of CT/CT, CT/MR, and CT/PET images allowed correlation of anatomic landmarks to within 2 mm, verifying the accuracy of the registration software and spatial fidelity of the four multimodality image sets., Conclusions: This straightforward phantom-based quality assurance of the image registration and fusion process can be used in a routine clinical setting or for providing a working image set for development of the image registration and fusion process and new software.

Background and Purpose: The accuracy of dose calculation and delivery of a commercial serial tomotherapy treatment planning and delivery system (Peacock. NOMOS Corporation) was experimentally determined., Materials and Methods: External beam fluence distributions were optimized and delivered to test treatment plan target volumes, including three with cylindrical targets with diameters ranging from 2.0 to 6.2 cm and lengths of 0.9 through 4.8 cm, one using three cylindrical targets and two using C-shaped targets surrounding a critical structure, each with different dose distribution optimization criteria. Computer overlays of film-measured and calculated planar dose distributions were used to assess the dose calculation and delivery spatial accuracy. A 0.125 cm3 ionization chamber was used to conduct absolute point dosimetry verification. Thermoluminescent dosimetry chips, a small-volume ionization chamber and radiochromic film were used as independent checks of the ion chamber measurements., Results: Spatial localization accuracy was found to be better than +/-2.0 mm in the transverse axes (with one exception of 3.0 mm) and +/-1.5 mm in the longitudinal axis. Dosimetric verification using single slice delivery versions of the plans showed that the relative dose distribution was accurate to +/-2% within and outside the target volumes (in high dose and low dose gradient regions) with a mean and standard deviation for all points of -0.05% and 1.1%, respectively. The absolute dose per monitor unit was found to vary by +/-3.5% of the mean value due to the lack of consideration for leakage radiation and the limited scattered radiation integration in the dose calculation algorithm. To deliver the prescribed dose, adjustment of the monitor units by the measured ratio would be required., Conclusions: The treatment planning and delivery system offered suitably accurate spatial registration and dose delivery of serial tomotherapy generated dose distributions. The quantitative dose comparisons were made as far as possible from abutment regions and examination of the dosimetry of these regions will also be important. Because of the variability in the dose per monitor unit and the complex nature of the calculation and delivery of serial tomotherapy, patient-specific quality assurance procedures will include a measurement of the delivered target dose.

Purpose: To determine an adequate planning target volume (PTV) margin for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) of prostate cancer, the uncertainties in the internal positions of the prostate and seminal vesicles (SV) and in the treatment setups were measured., Methods and Materials: Weekly computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis (n=51) and daily electronic portal images (n=1630) were reviewed for eight patients who received seven-field 3D CRT for prostate cancer. The CT scans were registered in three dimensions to the original planning CT scan using commercially available software to measure the center-of volume (COV) motion of the prostate and SV. The daily portal images were registered to the corresponding simulation films to measure the setup displacements. The standard deviation (SD) of the internal organ motions was added to the SD of the setups in quadrature to determine the total uncertainty. Positive directions were left, anterior, and superior. Rotations necessary to register the CT scans and portal images were minimal and not further analyzed., Results: The mean motion for the COV of the prostate+/-the SD was 0+/-0.9 mm in the left-right (LR), 0.5+/-2.6 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP), and 1.5+/-3.9 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) directions. The mean motion for the COV of the SV+/-the SD was 0.3+/-1.7 mm in the LR, 0.7+/-3.8 mm in the AP, and 0.9+/-3.5 mm in the SI directions. For all patients the mean isocenter displacement+/-the SD was 0+/-3.1 mm in the LR, 1.4+/-3.0 mm in the AP, and -0.4+/-2.1 mm in the SI directions. The total uncertainty for the prostate was 3.2 mm, 4.0 mm, and 4.4 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. For the SV, the total uncertainty was 3.5, 4.8, and 4.1 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively., Conclusions: PTV margins of 10 to 16 mm are required to encompass all (99%) possible positions of the prostate or SV during 3D CRT. PTV margins of 7 to 11 mm will encompass the measured uncertainties with a 95% probability. PTV margins of 5 mm may not adequately cover the intended volume.

Purpose: Both human and computer optimization of treatment plans have advantages; humans are much better at global pattern recognition, and computers are much better at detailed calculations. A major impediment to human optimization of treatment plans by manipulation of beam parameters is the long time required for feedback to the operator on the effectiveness of a change in beam parameters. Our goal was to create a real-time dose calculation and display system that provides the planner with immediate (fraction of a second) feedback with displays of three-dimensional (3D) isodose surfaces, digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs), dose-volume histograms, and/or a figure of merit (FOM) (i.e., a single value plan score function). This will allow the experienced treatment planner to optimize a plan by adjusting beam parameters based on a direct indication of plan effectiveness, the FOM value, and to use 3D display of target, critical organs, DRRs, and isodose contours to guide changes aimed at improving the FOM value., Methods and Materials: We use computer platforms that contain easily utilized parallel processors and very tight coupling between calculation and display. We ported code running on a network of two workstations and an array of transputers to a single multiprocessor workstation. Our current high-performance graphics workstation contains four 150-MHz processors that can be readily used in a shared-memory multithreaded calculation., Results: When a 10 x 10-cm beam is moved, using an 8-mm dose grid, the full 3D dose matrix is recalculated using a Bentley-Milan-type dose calculation algorithm, and the 3D dose surface display is then updated, all in < 0.1s. A 64 x 64-pixel DRR calculation can be performed in < 0.1 s. Other features, such as automated aperture calculation, are still required to make real-time feedback practical for clinical use., Conclusion: We demonstrate that real-time plan optimization using general purpose multiprocessor workstations is a practical goal. Parallel processing technology provides this capability for 3D planning systems, and when combined with objective plan ranking algorithms should prove effective for optimizing 3D conformal radiation therapy. Compared to our earlier transputer work, multiprocessor workstations are more easily programmed, making software development costs more reasonable compared with uniprocessor development costs. How the dose calculation is partitioned into parallel tasks on a multiprocessor work station can make a significant difference in performance. Shared-memory multiprocessor workstations are our first choice for future work, because they require minimum programming effort and continue to be driven to higher performance by competition in the workstation arena.

Purpose: To determine whether the clinical implementation of an electronic portal imaging device can improve the precision of daily external beam radiotherapy., Methods and Materials: In 1991, an electronic portal imaging device was installed on a dual energy linear accelerator in our clinic. After training the radiotherapy technologists in the acquisition and evaluation of portal images, we performed a randomized study to determine whether online observation, interruption, and intervention would result in more precise daily setup. The patients were randomized to one of two groups: those whose treatments were actively monitored by the radiotherapy technologists and those that were imaged but not monitored. The treating technologists were instructed to correct the following treatment errors: (a) field placement error (FPE) > 1 cm; (b) incorrect block; (c) incorrect collimator setting; (d) absent customized block. Time of treatment delivery was recorded by our patient tracking and billing computers and compared to a matched set of patients not participating in the study. After the patients radiation therapy course was completed, an offline analysis of the patient setup error was planned., Results: Thirty-two patients were treated to 34 anatomical sites in this study. In 893 treatment sessions, 1,873 fields were treated (1,089 fields monitored and 794 fields unmonitored). Ninety percent of the treated fields had at least one image stored for offline analysis. Eighty-seven percent of these images were analyzed offline. Of the 1,011 fields imaged in the monitored arm, only 14 (1.4%) had an intervention recorded by the technologist. Despite infrequent online intervention, offline analysis demonstrated that the incidence of FPE > 10 mm in the monitored and unmonitored groups was 56 out of 881 (6.1%) and 95 out of 595 (11.2%), respectively; p < 0.01. A significant reduction in the incidence of FPE > 10 mm was confined to the pelvic fields. The time to treat patients in this study was 10.78 min (monitored) and 10.10 min (unmonitored). Features that were identified that prevented the technologists from recognizing more errors online include poor image quality inherent to the portal imaging device used in this study, artifacts on the portal images related to table supports, and small field size lacking sufficient anatomical detail to detect FPEs. Furthermore, tools to objectively evaluate a portal image for the presence of field placement error were lacking. These include magnification factor corrections between the simulation of portal image, online measurement tools, image enhancement tools, and image registration algorithms., Conclusion: The use of an electronic portal imaging device in our clinic has been implemented without a significant increase in patient treatment time. Online intervention and correction of patient positioning occurred rarely, despite FPEs of > 10 mm being present in more than 10% of the treated fields. A significant reduction in FPEs exceeding 10 mm was made in the group of patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. It is likely that this improvement was made secondarily to a decrease in systematic error and not because of online interventions. More significant improvements in portal image quality and the availability of online image registration tools are required before substantial improvements can be made in patient positioning with online portal imaging.

Purpose: To evaluate the relative frequency and magnitude of intratreatment and intertreatment displacements in the patient positioning for pelvic radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging., Methods and Materials: Five hundred ninety-four electronic portal images of seven patients treated with a four-field pelvic technique were evaluated. All patients were treated prone without an immobilization device. Two fields were treated per day, from which an average of two electronic portal images were obtained for each field. No treatment was interrupted or adjusted on the basis of these images. Each image was aligned to the corresponding simulation film to measure the displacements in the mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior directions relative to the simulated center. The intertreatment displacement was the displacement measured from the initial image for each daily treated field. For each daily treated field the intratreatment displacement was calculated by subtracting the displacement measured on the initial image from the displacement measured on the final image., Results: The frequency of the intertreatment displacements exceeding 10 mm was 3%, 16%, and 23% for the mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior translations, respectively. There were no intratreatment displacements exceeding 10mm (p < 0.001). The frequency of intertreatment displacements exceeded 5 mm was 40, 52, and 51% for the mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior translations, respectively; whereas, the frequency of intratreatment displacements exceeding 5 mm was 1, 5, and 7% for the same translations, respectively (p < 0.001). The standard deviation of the intertreatment displacements was at least three times as great as the standard deviation of the intratreatment displacements for all translations. These deviations were greater than the precision limit of the measurement technique, which is approximately 1mm. Each patient had one direction where systematic error predominated in intertreatment positioning. Random error predominated for intratreatment positioning and for the other two directions in intertreatment positioning., Conclusions: During a course of pelvic radiotherapy, the frequency of intertreatment displacements exceeding 5 and 10 mm is significantly greater than the frequency of intratreatment displacements of these magnitudes. Errors in intertreatment positioning are predominantly systematic in one direction for each patient, whereas intratreatment error is predominantly random. Because patients do not move considerably during the daily treatment of a pelvic field, a single electronic portal image per daily field may be considered representative of the treated position.

Preliminary clinical results are presented for 209 patients with cancer who had treatment planned on our three-dimensional radiation treatment planning (3-D RTP) system and were treated with external beam conformal radiation therapy. Average times (min) for CT volumetric simulation were: 74 without or 84 with contrast material; 36 for contouring of tumor/target volume and 44 for normal anatomy; 78 for treatment planning; 53 for plan evaluation/optimization; and 58 for verification simulation. Average time of daily treatment sessions with 3-D conformal therapy or standard techniques was comparable for brain, head and neck, thoracic, and hepatobiliary tumors (11.8-14 min and 11.5-12.1, respectively). For prostate cancer patients treated with 3-D conformal technique and Cerrobend blocks, mean treatment time was 19 min; with multileaf collimation it was 14 min and with bilateral arc rotation, 9.8 min. Acute toxicity was comparable to or lower than with standard techniques. Sophisticated 3-D RTP and conformal irradiation can be performed in a significant number of patients at a reasonable cost. Further efforts, including dose-escalation studies, are necessary to develop more versatile and efficient 3-D RTP systems and to enhance the cost benefit of this technology in treatment of patients with cancer.

Purpose: Two techniques have been developed at our institution to allow anatomical registration of digitized portal images to a simulation film. Accuracy of the portal image alignment methods is tested and single intrauser and multiple interuser variation is examined using each technique., Methods and Materials: Method one requires the identification of anatomical fiducial points on a simulation image and its corresponding portal image. The parameters required to align the corresponding points are calculated by a least squares fit algorithm. Method two uses an anatomical template generated from the simulation image and superimposing it upon a portal image. The template is then adjusted by a computer mouse to obtain the best subjective anatomical fit on the portal image. Megavoltage portal images of a skull phantom with various known shifts and eight clinical image files were aligned by each method. Each data set was aligned several times by both a single user and multiple users., Results: Alignment of the anatomical phantom portal images demonstrates an accuracy of less than 0.8 +/- 0.9 mm and 0.7 +/- 1.0 degrees with either method. As out of plane rotation increased from 0 to 5 degrees, simulating out of plane malpositioning, alignment orthogonal to the plane of rotation worsened to 1.5 +/- 1.1 mm with the point method and 2.4 +/- 1.6 mm with the template method. Alignment parallel to the axis of the gantry rotation was insensitive to this change and remained constant as did the rotational alignment parameters. For the clinical image files the magnitude of variation for a single user is typically less than +/- 1 mm or +/- 1 degree. The magnitude of variation of alignment increased when multiple users aligned the same image files. The variation was dependent upon anatomical site and to a lesser degree the method of alignment used. The root mean square deviation of translational shifts range from +/- 0.68 mm when using the template method in the pelvis to as high as +/- 2.94 mm with the template method to align abdominal portal images. In the thorax and pelvis translational alignments along the horizontal axis were more precise than along the vertical axis. Multiple user variability was in part due to poor image quality, user experience, non rigidity of the anatomical features, and the difficulty in locating an exact point on a continuous anatomical structure., Conclusion: In well controlled phantom studies both the fiducial point and template method provide similar and adequate results. The phantom studies show that alignment error and variance increase with distortion in anatomical features secondary to out of plane rotations. In clinical situations intrauser variation is small, however, multiple interuser variation is larger. The magnitude of variation is dependent upon the anatomical site aligned.