Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Intra-fraction motion represents a crucial issue in the era of precise radiotherapy in several settings, including breast irradiation. To date, only few data exist on real-time measured intra-fraction motion in breast cancer patients. Continuous surface imaging using visible light offers the capability to monitor patient movements in three-dimensional space without any additional radiation exposure. The aim of the present study was to quantify the uncertainties of possible intra-fractional motion during breast radiotherapy. Material and methods One hundred and four consecutive patients that underwent postoperative radiotherapy following breast conserving surgery or mastectomy were prospectively evaluated during 2028 treatment sessions. During each treatment session the patients’ motion was continuously measured using the Catalyst™ optical surface scanner (C-RAD AB, Sweden) and compared to a reference scan acquired at the beginning of each session. The Catalyst system works through an optical surface imaging with light emitting diode (LED) light and reprojection captured by a charge coupled device (CCD) camera, which provide target position control during treatment delivery with a motion detection accuracy of 0.5 mm. For 3D surface reconstruction, the system uses a non-rigid body algorithm to calculate the distance between the surface and the isocentre and using the principle of optical triangulation. Three-dimensional deviations and relative position differences during the whole treatment fraction were calculated by the system and analyzed statistically. Results Overall, the maximum magnitude of the deviation vector showed a mean change of 1.93 mm ± 1.14 mm (standard deviation [SD]) (95%-confidence interval: [0.48–4.65] mm) and a median change of 1.63 mm during dose application (beam-on time only). Along the lateral and longitudinal axis changes were quite similar (0.18 mm ± 1.06 mm vs. 0.17 mm ± 1.32 mm), on the vertical axis the mean change was 0.68 mm ± 1.53 mm. The mean treatment session time was 154 ± 53 (SD) seconds and the mean beam-on time only was 55 ± 16 s. According to Friedman’s test differences in the distributions of the three possible directions (lateral, longitudinal and vertical) were significant ( p  < 0.01), in post-hoc analysis there were no similarities between any two of the three directions. Conclusion The optical surface imaging system is an accurate and easy tool for real-time motion management in breast cancer radiotherapy. Intra-fraction motion was reported within five millimeters in all directions. Thus, intra-fraction motion in our series of 2028 treatment sessions seems to be of minor clinical relevance in postoperative radiotherapy of breast cancer.

This study quantified the performance of Intra-fraction Motion Review (IMR) during prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) treatments. IMR was evaluated using prostate motion data from patients treated in an SBRT clinical trial (PROMETHEUS, NCT00587990).IMR measured prostate displacements were compared to those of two 3D motion management methods: Kilovoltage Intra-fraction Motion management (KIM) and MV/kV triangulation. A planning study assessing the impact of a defined prostate motion (2–5 mm) on the PTV  coverage with and without IMR was performed. A clinically relevant IMR search region for prostate cancer SBRT treatments was determined using a customised anthropomorphic pelvis phantom with implanted gold seeds and a motion platform. IMR showed submillimeter agreement with corresponding 2D projections from both KIM and MV/kV triangulation. However, IMR detected actual displacements consistently in considerably fewer frames than KIM (3D), with the actual numbers depending on the settings. The Default Search Region (DSR) method employing a circular search region proved superior to user-contoured structures in detecting clinically relevant prostate motion. Reducing the DSR search region radius can reduce the impact of the 2D nature of IMR and improve the detectability of actual motion (by 10% per 0.5 mm reduction) but must be balanced against increased beam interruptions from minor, clinically irrelevant motion. The use of IMR for SBRT prostate treatments has the potential to improve target dose coverage (minimum dose to 98% of the PTV, D98%) by > 20% compared to treatment without IMR. Calculated D98% of IMR monitored treatments with motion was within 1.5% of plans without motion.

We analyzed a large patient and volunteer study of external respiratory motion in order to develop a population database of respiratory information. We analyzed 120 lung, liver, and abdominal patients and 25 volunteers without lung disease to determine the extent of motion using the Varian Real‐Time Position Management system. The volunteer respiratory motion was measured for both abdominal and thoracic placement of the RPM box. Evaluation of a subset of 55 patients demonstrates inter‐ and intrafraction variation over treatment. We also calculated baseline drift and duty cycle for patients and volunteers. The mean peak‐to‐peak amplitude (SD) for the patients was 1.0 (0.5) cm, and for the volunteers it was abdomen 0.8 (0.3) cm and thoracic 0.2 (0.2) cm. The mean period (SD) was 3.6 (1.0) s, 4.2 (1.1) s, and 4.1 (0.8) s, and the mean end exhale position (SD) was 60% (6), 58% (7), and 56% (7) for patient, volunteer abdomen, and volunteer thoracic, respectively. Baseline drift was greater than 0.5 cm for 40% of patients. We found statistically significant differences between the patient and volunteer groups. Peak‐to‐peak amplitude was significantly larger for patients than the volunteer abdominal measurement and the volunteer abdominal measurement is significantly larger than the volunteer thoracic measurement. The patient group also exhibited significantly larger baseline drift than the volunteer group. We also found that peak‐to‐peak amplitude was the most variable parameter for both intra‐ and interfraction motion. This database compilation can be used as a resource for expected motion when using external surrogates in radiotherapy applications. PACS number: 87.19.Wx, 87.55.Km

Background and purpose Multiple techniques can be used to assist with more accurate patient setup and monitoring during Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment. This study analyzes the accuracy of 3D surface mapping with Surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) in detecting interfraction setup error and intrafraction motion during SBRT treatments of the lung and abdomen. Materials and Methods Seventy‐one patients with 85 malignant thoracic or abdominal tumors treated with SBRT were analyzed. For initial patient setup, an alternating scheme of kV/kV imaging or SGRT was followed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for more accurate tumor volumetric localization. The CBCT six degree shifts after initial setup with each method were recorded to assess interfraction setup error. Patients were then monitored continuously with SGRT during treatment. If an intrafractional shift in any direction >2 mm for longer than 2 sec was detected by SGRT, then CBCT was repeated and the recorded deltas were compared to those detected by SGRT. Results Interfractional shifts after SGRT setup and CBCT were small in all directions with mean values of <5 mm and < 0.5 degrees in all directions. Additionally, 25 patients had detected intrafraction motion by SGRT during a total of 34 fractions. This resulted in 25 (73.5%) additional shifts of at least 2 mm on subsequent CBCT. When comparing the average vector detected shift by SGRT to the resulting vector shift on subsequent CBCT, no significant difference was found between the two. Conclusions Surface‐guided radiation therapy provides initial setup within 5 mm for patients treated with SBRT and can be used in place of skin marks or planar kV imaging prior to CBCT. In addition, continuous monitoring with SGRT during treatment was valuable in detecting potentially clinically meaningful intrafraction motion and was comparable in magnitude to shifts from additional CBCT scans. PTV margin reduction may be feasible for SBRT in the lung and abdomen when using SGRT for continuous patient monitoring during treatment.

This study assessed the positional detection accuracy of the Catalyst HD system for intracranial stereotactic irradiation (STI) under clinically relevant conditions, including variations in head posture, isocenter position, and couch angle. An anthropomorphic head phantom was used to simulate three head postures, chin-up, neutral, and chin-down, each stabilized with a corresponding thermoplastic mask. Seven isocenter positions were defined: one central position and six offset positions, each 5 cm away in a cardinal direction. Treatment plans incorporated multiple couch angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°). The Catalyst HD system's accuracy was evaluated by comparing its detected displacements to predefined shifts applied using a HexaPOD evo RT system. Translational shifts of ±3 mm and rotational shifts of ±2° were introduced. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Under standard conditions (neutral posture, central isocenter, and 0° couch angle), the system demonstrated submillimeter accuracy (mean translational error: 0.08 mm; mean rotational error: 0.12°). Detection errors were significantly larger in the chin-up posture compared to the neutral posture ( =0.028). Similarly, a superior isocenter position resulted in considerably larger errors ( =0.026). A couch rotation of 30° led to a significant increase in error, whereas other couch angles maintained high precision. The Catalyst HD system exhibits high accuracy for intracranial STI under most tested conditions. However, to optimize performance and accuracy, configurations involving a chin-up posture or a superior isocenter position should be avoided.

The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi‐leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one‐dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root‐mean‐square (RMS) error between the Synchrony‐modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was <1.5 mm for all Synchrony deliveries with the LEDs on the Phantom+. The tracking errors increased slightly when the LEDs were placed on the surrogate stage but were similar to tracking errors observed for other motion tracking systems such as CyberKnife Synchrony. One‐dimensional profiles indicate the effects of motion interplay and dose blurring present in several of the M1S0 plans that are not present in the M1S1 plans. All 13 of the M1S1 measured doses had gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm/10%T) compared to the planned dose > 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV‐based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

HERMES is a phase II trial of MRI-guided daily-adaptive radiotherapy (MRIgART) randomising men with localised prostate cancer to either 2-fractions of SBRT with a boost to the tumour or 5-fraction SBRT. In the context of this highly innovative regime the dose delivered must be carefully considered. The first ten patients recruited to HERMES were analysed in order to establish the dose received by the targets and organs at risk (OARS) in the context of intrafraction motion. A regression analysis was performed to measure how the volume of air within the rectum might further impact rectal dose secondary to the electron return effect (ERE). One hundred percent of CTV target objectives were achieved on the MRI taken prior to beam-on-time. The post-delivery MRI showed that high-dose CTV coverage was achieved in 90% of sub-fractions (each fraction is delivered in two sub-fractions) in the 2-fraction cohort and in 88% of fractions the 5-fraction cohort. Rectal D1 cm3 was the most exceeded constraint; three patients exceeded the D1 cm3 < 20.8 Gy in the 2-fraction cohort and one patient exceeded the D1 cm3 < 36 Gy in the 5-fraction cohort. The volume of rectal gas within 1 cm of the prostate was directly proportional to the increase in rectal D1 cm3, with a strong (R = 0.69) and very strong (R = 0.90) correlation in the 2-fraction and 5-fraction cohort respectively. Dose delivery specified in HERMES is feasible, although for some patients delivered doses to both target and OARs may vary from those planned.

The purpose of this study was to characterize the motion and define the required treatment margins of the pathological mesorectal lymph nodes (GTVln) for two online adaptive MRI-guided strategies for sequential boosting. Secondly, we determine the margins required for the primary gross tumor volume (GTVprim). Twenty-eight patients treated on a 1.5T MR-Linac were included in the study. On T2-weighted images for adaptation (MRIadapt) before and verification after irradiation (MRIpost) of five treatment fractions per patient, the GTVln and GTVprim were delineated. With online adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy, daily plan adaptation can be performed through the use of two different strategies. In an adapt-to-shape (ATS) workflow the interfraction motion is effectively corrected by redelineation and the only relevant motion is intrafraction motion, while in an adapt-to-position (ATP) workflow the margin (for GTVln) is dominated by interfraction motion. The margin required for GTVprim will be identical to the ATS workflow, assuming each fraction would be perfectly matched on GTVprim. The intrafraction motion was calculated between MRIadapt and MRIpost for the GTVln and GTVprim separately. The interfraction motion of the GTVln was calculated with respect to the position of GTVprim, assuming each fraction would be perfectly matched on GTVprim. PTV margins were calculated for each strategy using the Van Herk recipe. For GTVln we randomly sampled the original dataset 20 times, with each subset containing a single randomly selected lymph node for each patient. The resulting margins for ATS ranged between 3 and 4 mm (LR), 3 and 5 mm (CC) and 5 and 6 mm (AP) based on the 20 randomly sampled datasets for GTVln. For ATP, the margins for GTVln were 10–12 mm in LR and AP and 16–19 mm in CC. The margins for ATS for GTVprim were 1.7 mm (LR), 4.7 mm (CC) and 3.2 mm anterior and 5.6 mm posterior. Daily delineation using ATS of both target volumes results in the smallest margins and is therefore recommended for safe dose escalation to the primary tumor and lymph nodes.

PurposeA markerless workflow for the treatment of breast cancer patients has been introduced and evaluated retrospectively. It includes surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT)-only positioning for patients with small cone beam CT (CBCT) position corrections during the first five fractions. Prerequisites and the frequency of its clinical application were evaluated, as well as potential benefits in terms of treatment time and dose savings, the frequency of CBCT scans, and the accuracy of the positioning.MethodsA group of 100 patients treated with the new workflow on two Versa HD linacs has been compared to a matched control group of patients treated with the former workflow, which included prepositioning with skin markings and lasers, SGRT and daily CBCT. The comparison was based on the evaluation of logfiles.ResultsOf the patients treated with the new workflow, 40% did not receive daily CBCT scans. This resulted in mean time savings of 97 s, 166 s and 239 s per fraction for the new workflow, for patients treated without daily CBCT and for SGRT-only fractions, respectively, when compared to the old workflow. Dose savings amounted to a weighted computed tomography dose index reduction of CTDIW = 2.56 cGy on average for normofractionated treatment and weekly CBCTs, while for patients not treated with daily CBCT, SGRT-based positioning accuracy was 5.2 mm for the mean translational magnitude, as evaluated by CBCT.ConclusionFor 40% of the patients, after five fractions with small CBCT corrections, the workflow could be changed to SGRT-only positioning with weekly CBCT. This leads to imaging dose and time savings and thus also reduced intrafraction motion, potentially increased patient throughput and patient comfort, while assuring appropriate positioning accuracy.

The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and interfraction anatomical changes and the effect of beam gating and motion correction were investigated in dose-escalated linac-based SBRT. Fifty-six gated fractions were delivered using a novel electromagnetic tracking device with a 2 mm threshold. Real-time prostate motion data were incorporated into the patient’s original plan with an isocenter shift method. Delivered dose distributions were obtained by recalculating these motion-encoded plans on deformed CTs reflecting the patient’s CBCT daily anatomy. Non-gated treatments were simulated using the prostate motion data assuming that no treatment interruptions have occurred. The mean relative dose differences between delivered and planned treatments were −3.0% [−18.5–2.8] for CTV D99% and −2.6% [−17.8–1.0] for PTV D95%. The median cumulative CTV coverage with 93% of the prescribed dose was satisfactory. Urethra sparing was slightly degraded, with the maximum dose increased by only 1.0% on average, and a mean reduction in the rectum and bladder doses was seen in almost all dose metrics. Intrafraction prostate motion marginally contributed in gated treatments, while in non-gated treatments, further deteriorations in the minimum target coverage and bladder dose metrics would have occurred on average. The implemented motion management strategy and the strict patient preparation regimen, along with other treatment optimization strategies, ensured no significant degradations of dose metrics in delivered treatments.