Search

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to quantify errors by using a cine electronic portal imaging device (cine EPID) during deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) for left-sided breast cancer and to estimate the planning target volume (PTV) by variance component analysis. METHODS: This study included 25 consecutive left-sided breast cancer patients treated with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) using DIBH. Breath-holding was performed while monitoring abdominal anterior-posterior (AP) motion using the Real-time Position Management (RPM) system. Cine EPID was used to evaluate the chest wall displacements in patients. Cine EPID images of the patients (309, 609 frames) were analyzed to detect the edges of the chest wall using a Canny filter. The errors that occurred during DIBH included differences between the chest wall position detected by digitally reconstructed radiographs and that of all cine EPID images. The inter-patient, inter-fraction, and intra-fractional standard deviations (SDs) in the DIBH were calculated, and the PTV margin was estimated by variance component analysis. RESULTS: The median patient age was 55 (35-79) years, and the mean irradiation time was 20.4 ± 1.7 s. The abdominal AP motion was 1.36 ± 0.94 (0.14-5.28) mm. The overall mean of the errors was 0.30 mm (95% confidence interval: - 0.05-0.65). The inter-patient, inter-fraction, and intra-fractional SDs in the DIBH were 0.82 mm, 1.19 mm, and 1.63 mm, respectively, and the PTV margin was calculated as 3.59 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Errors during DIBH for breast radiotherapy were monitored using EPID images and appropriate PTV margins were estimated by variance component analysis.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of fractional dose and the number of arcs on interplay effects when volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is used to treat lung tumors with large respiratory motions. A three (fractional dose of 4, 7.5 or 12.5 Gy) by two (number of arcs, one or two) VMAT plan was created for 10 lung cancer cases. The median 3D tumor motion was 17.9 mm (range: 8.2–27.2 mm). Ten phase-specific subplans were generated by calculating the dose on each respiratory phase computed tomography (CT) scan using temporally assigned VMAT arcs. We performed temporal assignment of VMAT arcs using respiratory information obtained from infrared markers placed on the abdomens of the patients during CT simulations. Each phase-specific dose distribution was deformed onto exhale phase CT scans using contour-based deformable image registration, and a 4D plan was created by dose accumulation. The gross tumor volume dose of each 4D plan (4D GTV dose) was compared with the internal target volume dose of the original plan (3D ITV dose). The near-minimum 4D GTV dose (D99%) was higher than the near-minimum 3D internal target volume (ITV) dose, whereas the near-maximum 4D GTV dose (D1%) was lower than the near-maximum 3D ITV dose. However, the difference was negligible, and thus the 4D GTV dose corresponded well with the 3D ITV dose, regardless of the fractional dose and number of arcs. Therefore, interplay effects were negligible in VMAT-based stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung tumors with large respiratory motions.

Deformable image registration (DIR) has recently become commercially available in the field of radiotherapy. However, there was no detailed information regarding the use of DIR software at each medical institution. Thus, in this study, we surveyed the status of the clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan. The Japan Society of Medical Physics and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology mailing lists were used to announce this survey. The questionnaire was created by investigators working under the research grant of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (2017–2018) and intended for the collection of information regarding the use of DIR in radiotherapy. The survey was completed by 161 institutions in Japan. The survey results showed that dose accumulation was the most frequent purpose for which DIR was used in clinical practice (73%). Various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Qualitative evaluation with actual patient images was the most commonly used method (28%), although 30% of the total number of responses (42% of institutions) reported that they do not perform commissioning. We surveyed the current status of clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan for the first time. Our results indicated that a certain number of institutions used DIR software for clinical practice, and various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Taken together, these findings highlight the need for a technically unified approach for commissioning and quality assurance for the use of DIR software in Japan.

Purpose: To perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator. Methods: We planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston–Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK. Results: The MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston–Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7–99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2–96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9–99.6%), respectively. Conclusions: CCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1–1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2–6°/s), and ring speed (0.5–2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1‐mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

We assessed long-term stability of tracking accuracy using the Vero4DRT system. This metric was observed between September 2012 and March 2015. A programmable respiratory motion phantom, designed to move phantoms synchronously with respiratory surrogates, was used. The infrared (IR) markers moved in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction as respiratory surrogates, while a cube phantom with a steel ball at the center, representing the tumor, and with radiopaque markers around it moved in the superior-inferior (SI) direction with one-dimensional (1D) sinusoidal patterns. A correlation model between the tumor and IR marker motion (4D model) was created from the training data obtained for 20 s just before beam delivery. The irradiation field was set to 3× 3cm2 and 300 monitor units (MUs) of desired MV X-ray beam were delivered. The gantry and ring angles were set to 0o and 45o, respectively. During beam delivery, the system recorded approximately 60 electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. We analyzed: 1) the predictive accuracy of the 4D model (EP), defined as the difference between the detected and predicted target positions during 4D model creation, and 2) the tracking accuracy (ET), defined as the difference between the center of the steel ball and the MV X-ray field on the EPID image. The median values of mean plus two standard deviations (SDs) for EP were 0.06, 0.35, and 0.06mm in the left-right (LR), SI, and AP directions, respectively. The mean values of maximum deviation for ET were 0.38, 0.49, and 0.53mm and the coefficients of variance (CV) were 0.16, 0.10, and 0.05 in lateral, longitudinal, and 2D directions, respectively. Consequently, the IR Tracking accuracy was consistent over a period of two years. Our proposed method assessed the overall tracking accuracy readily using real-time EPID images, and proved to be a useful QA tool for dynamic tumor tracking with the Vero4DRT system.

A novel three-dimensional unicursal irradiation technique "Dynamic WaveArc" (DWA), which employs simultaneous and continuous gantry and O-ring rotation during dose delivery, has been implemented in Vero4DRT. The purposes of this study were to develop a commissioning and quality assurance procedure for DWA irradiation, and to assess the accuracy of the mechanical motion and dosimetric control of Vero4DRT. To determine the mechanical accuracy and the dose accuracy with DWA irradiation, 21 verification test patterns with various gantry and ring rotational directions and speeds were generated. These patterns were irradiated while recording the irradiation log data. The differences in gantry position, ring position, and accumulated MU (EG, ER, and EMU, respectively) between the planned and actual values in the log at each time point were evaluated. Furthermore, the doses delivered were measured using an ionization chamber and spherical phantom. The constancy of radiation output during DWA irradiation was examined by comparison with static beam irradiation. The mean absolute error (MAE) of EG and ER were within 0.1° and the maximum error was within 0.2°. The MAE of EMU was within 0.7 MU, and maximum error was 2.7 MU. Errors of accumulated MU were observed only around control points, changing gantry, and ring velocity. The gantry rotational range, in which EMU was greater than or equal to 2.0 MU, was not greater than 3.2%. It was confirmed that the extent of the large differences in accumulated MU was negligibly small during the entire irradiation range. The variation of relative output value for DWA irradiation was within 0.2%, and this was equivalent to conventional arc irradiation with a rotating gantry. In conclusion, a verification procedure for DWA irradiation was designed and implemented. The results demonstrated that Vero4DRT has adequate mechanical accuracy and beam output constancy durin