Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac

Characterization of the IDENTIFYTM surface scanning system for radiation therapy setup on a closed-bore linac

PURPOSE

In radiation therapy, surface guidance can be used for patient setup and intra-fraction motion monitoring. The surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system from Varian Medical systems, IDENTIFYTM, consists of three pods, including cameras and a random pattern projector, mounted on the ceiling. The information captured by the cameras is used to make a reconstruction of the surface. The aim of the study was to assess the technical performance of this SGRT system on a closed-bore linac.

METHODS

Phantom measurements were performed to assess the accuracy, precision, reproducibility and temporal stability of the system, both in align and in load position. Translations of the phantoms in lateral, longitudinal, and vertical direction, and rotations around three axes (pitch, roll and yaw) were performed with an accurate, in-house built, positioning stage. Different phantom geometries and different surface colors were used, and various ambient light intensities were tested.

RESULTS

The accuracy of the IDENTIFYTM system at the closed-bore linac was 0.07 mm and 0.07 degrees at load position, and 0.06 mm and 0.01 degrees at align position for the white head phantom. The precision was 0.02 mm and 0.02 degrees in load position, and 0.01 mm and 0.02 degrees in align position. The accuracy for the Penta-Guide phantom was comparable to the white head phantom, with 0.06 mm and 0.01 degrees in align position. The system was slightly less accurate for translations of the CIRS lung phantom in align position (0.20 mm, 0.05 degrees). Reproducibility measurements showed a variation of 0.02 mm in load position. Regarding the temporal stability, the maximum drift over 30 min was 0.33 mm and 0.02 degrees in load position. No effect of ambient light level on the accuracy of the IDENTIFYTM system was observed. Regarding different surface colors, the accuracy of the system for a black phantom was slightly worse compared to a white surface, but not clinical relevant.

CONCLUSION

The IDENTIFYTM system can adequately be used for motion monitoring on a closed-bore linac with submillimeter accuracy. The results of the performed measurements meet the clinical requirements described in the guidelines of the AAPM and the ESTRO.

Evaluation and correlation of patient movement during online adaptive radiotherapy with CBCT and a surface imaging system

PURPOSE

With the clinical implementation of kV-CBCT-based daily online-adaptive radiotherapy, the ability to monitor, quantify, and correct patient movement during adaptive sessions is paramount. With sessions lasting between 20-45 min, the ability to detect and correct for small movements without restarting the entire session is critical to the adaptive workflow and dosimetric outcome. The purpose of this study was to quantify and evaluate the correlation of observed patient movement with machine logs and a surface imaging (SI) system during adaptive radiation therapy.

METHODS

Treatment machine logs and SGRT registration data log files for 1972 individual sessions were exported and analyzed. For each session, the calculated shifts from a pre-delivery position verification CBCT were extracted from the machine logs and compared to the SGRT registration data log files captured during motion monitoring. The SGRT calculated shifts were compared to the reported shifts of the machine logs for comparison for all patients and eight disease site categories.

RESULTS

The average (±STD) net displacement of the SGRT shifts were 2.6 ± 3.4 mm, 2.6 ± 3.5 mm, and 3.0 ± 3.2 in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. For the treatment machine logs, the average net displacements in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions were 2.7 ± 3.7 mm, 2.6 ± 3.7 mm, and 3.2 ± 3.6 mm. The average difference (Machine-SGRT) was -0.1 ± 1.8 mm, 0.2 ± 2.1 mm, and -0.5 ± 2.5 mm for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions. On average, a movement of 5.8 ± 5.6 mm and 5.3 ± 4.9 mm was calculated prior to delivery for the CBCT and SGRT systems, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CBCT and SGRT shifts was r = 0.88. The mean and median difference between the treatment machine logs and SGRT log files was less than 1 mm for all sites.

CONCLUSION

Surface imaging should be used to monitor and quantify patient movement during adaptive radiotherapy.

Characteristics of detection accuracy of the patient setup using InBore optical patient positioning system

This study aimed to evaluate the detection accuracy of the AlignRT-InBore system in surface-guided radiation therapy using a phantom and to determine the feasibility of the system by conducting a comparative analysis with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration. The AlignRT-InBore system integrated with the ETHOS Therapy was used. A phantom and a QUASAR phantom were employed to examine the specific areas of interest relevant to clinical cases. The evaluation involved monitoring translations for approximately 30 min and assessing the position detection accuracy for static and moving objects. Fifty clinical cases were used to evaluate the position detection accuracy and its relationship with the localization accuracy of CBCT before treatment. The detection accuracy of static and moving objects was within 1.0 mm using the phantom. However, the longitudinal direction tended to be larger than the other directions. Regarding the accuracy of localization in clinical cases, a strong and statistically significant (p < 0.01) correlation was observed in each direction. A detection accuracy within 1.0 mm is possible for static and moving objects. The detection accuracy of the patient setup using the InBore optical patient positioning system was extremely high, and the patient could be detected with high precision, suggesting its usefulness.

Surface-Guided Radiotherapy: Can We Move on from the Era of Three-Point Markers to the New Era of Thousands of Points?

The surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) technique improves patient positioning with submillimeter accuracy compared with the conventional positioning technique of lasers using three-point tattoos. SGRT provides solutions to considerations that arise from the conventional setup technique, such as variability in tattoo position and the psychological impact of the tattoos. Moreover, SGRT provides monitoring of intrafractional motion.

PURPOSE

This literature review covers the basics of SGRT systems and examines whether SGRT can replace the traditional positioning technique. In addition, it investigates SGRT's potential in reducing positioning times, factors affecting SGRT accuracy, the effectiveness of live monitoring, and the impact on patient dosage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study focused on papers published from 2016 onward that compared SGRT with the traditional positioning technique and investigated factors affecting SGRT accuracy and effectiveness.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

SGRT provides the same or better results regarding patient positioning. The implementation of SGRT can reduce overall treatment time. It is an effective technique for detecting intrafraction patient motion, improving treatment accuracy and precision, and creating a safe and comfortable environment for the patient during treatment.

Initial clinical evaluation of a novel combined biometric, radio-frequency identification, and surface imaging system

PURPOSE

To evaluate and characterize the overall clinical functionality and workflow of the newly released Varian Identify system (version 2.3).

METHODS

Three technologies included in the Varian Identify system were evaluated: patient biometric authentication, treatment accessory device identification, and surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) function. Biometric authentication employs a palm vein reader. Treatment accessory device verification utilizes two technologies: device presence via Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and position via optical markers. Surface-guidance was evaluated on both patient orthopedic setup at loading position and surface matching and tracking at treatment isocenter. A phantom evaluation of the consistency and accuracy for Identify SGRT function was performed, including a system consistency test, a translational shift and rotational accuracy test, a pitch and roll accuracy test, a continuous recording test, and an SGRT vs Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) agreement test.

RESULTS

201 patient authentications were verified successfully with palm reader. All patient treatment devices were successfully verified for their presences and positions (indexable devices). The patient real-time orthopedic pose was successfully adjusted to match the reference surface captured at simulation. SGRT-reported shift consistency against couch readout was within (0.1 mm, 0.030). The shift accuracy was within (0.3 mm, 0.10). In continuous recording mode, the maximum variation was 0.2 ± 0.12 mm, 0.030 ± 0.020. The difference between Identify SGRT offset and CBCT was within (1 mm, 10).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical evaluation confirms that Identify accurately functions for patient palm identification and patient treatment device presence and position verification. Overall SGRT consistency and accuracy was within (1 mm, 10), within the 2 mm criteria of AAPM TG302.

Evaluation of initial patient setup methods for breast cancer between surface-guided radiation therapy and laser alignment based on skin marking in the Halcyon system

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the daily patient setup for breast cancer patients by applying surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) using the Halcyon system instead of conventional laser alignment based on the skin marking method.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively investigated 228 treatment fractions using two different initial patient setup methods. The accuracy of the residual rotational error of the SGRT system was evaluated by using an in-house breast phantom. The residual translational error was analyzed using the couch position difference in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions between the reference computed tomography and daily kilo-voltage cone beam computed tomography acquired from the record and verification system. The residual rotational error (pitch, yaw, and roll) was also calculated using an auto rigid registration between the two images based on Velocity. The total setup time, which combined the initial setup time and imaging time, was analyzed to evaluate the efficiency of the daily patient setup for SGRT.

RESULTS

The average residual rotational errors using the in-house fabricated breast phantom for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.14°, 0.13°, and 0.29°, respectively. The average differences in the couch positions for laser alignment based on the skin marking method were 2.7 ± 1.6 mm, 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm for the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. For SGRT, the average differences in the couch positions were 1.9 ± 1.2 mm, 2.9 ± 2.1 mm, and 1.9 ± 0.7 mm for the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The rotational errors for pitch, yaw, and roll without the surface-guided radiation therapy approach were 0.32 ± 0.30°, 0.51 ± 0.24°, and 0.29 ± 0.22°, respectively. For SGRT, the rotational errors were 0.30 ± 0.22°, 0.51 ± 0.26°, and 0.19 ± 0.13°, respectively. The average total setup times considering both the initial setup time and imaging time were 314 s and 331 s, respectively, with and without SGRT.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that using SGRT improves the accuracy and efficiency of initial patient setups in breast cancer patients using the Halcyon system, which has limitations in correcting the rotational offset.

Investigating the robustness of the AlignRT InBore™ co-calibration process and determining the overall tracking errors

OBJECTIVE

To determine the overall tracking errors inherent to the co-calibration procedure of AlignRT InBore™'s (Vision RT Ltd., London, UK) ceiling-mounted and ring-mounted cameras.

METHODS

Extrinsic calibration errors related to the mismatch between ceiling and InBore cameras' isocentres and treatment isocentre were determined using MV images and the SRS package and compared to traditional plate-based error. Next, using a realistic anthropomorphic female phantom, intrinsic calibration errors were determined while varying source-skin distance (80 to 100 cm), breast board inclination (0° to 12.5°), room lighting conditions (0 to 258 lx), skin colour (dark, white and natural skin colour), and pod occlusion.

RESULTS

MV images of the cube proved plate-based calibration to suffer from large errors especially in the vertical direction (up to 2 mm). Intrinsic calibration errors were considerably lower. Indeed, RTD values of ceiling and InBore cameras showed little variability with isocentre depth (within 1.0 mm/0.4°), surface orientation and breast board inclination (within 0.7 mm/0.3°), changing lighting conditions (within 0.1 mm/0.2°), skin colour/tone (within 0.3 mm/0.3°) and camera pod occlusion (within 0.3 mm/0.2°).

CONCLUSION

The use of MV-images proved critical to maintain co-calibrating errors of ceiling and InBore cameras to Halcyon's treatment isocentre below 1 mm.

Treatment time of image-guided radiotherapy with a Halcyon 2.0 system

INTRODUCTION

The treatment fraction time is a key indicator of the external beam radiotherapy process. The Halcyon system was designed to improve the clinical workflow, according to the manufacturer (Varian Medical Systems). Few works studied the actual delivery efficiency of the Halcyon system. This work analyzed the treatment time on a Halcyon 2.0 unit for a variety of sites along a period of 9 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment time included patient setup, image acquisition, image-guided online couch correction, and radiation delivery time. Data were extracted from the ARIA oncology information system and were studied as a function of the treatment site, the delivery modality, and the time from the first day of treatments with the Halcyon 2.0 system in our institution.

RESULTS

A total of 8599 fractions were delivered during the analyzed period (69.5% from VMAT plans, and 30.5% from IMRT plans). The number of fractions by site ranged from 30 for anal canal to 1933 for prostate. Five sites (prostate, lung, pelvis with prostate, breast, and gynecological sites) accounted for the 84% of the fractions. After a 2-week adaptation period of the staff, the daily mean treatment time was reduced to less than 12 min. The mean treatment time of all the fractions amounted to 10.5 ± 3.8 min.

CONCLUSIONS

The Halcyon 2.0 allowed delivering online image-guided radiation therapy in all fractions with total treatment time consistently below the 12-min standard time slot, for most of the analyzed treatment sites.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing prophylactic cranial irradiation: Planning comparison of Halcyon and C-arm accelerators

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dosimetry of the Halcyon in prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and hippocampal-sparing for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Methods

Five VMAT plans were designed on CT images of 15 patients diagnosed with SCLC and received PCI. Three plans with two full arcs were generated on the Trilogy and the TrueBeam accelerators, and flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) modes were used on TrueBeam. Two Halcyon plans with two and three full arcs were generated, referred to as H-2A and H-3A, respectively. The prescription dose was 25 Gy in 2.5-Gy fractions. The dose limit for hippocampus were D₁₀₀ ≤ 9Gy and D_max ≤ 16Gy. The Wilcoxon matched-paired signed-rank test was used to evaluate the significance of the observed differences between the five plans.

Results

H-2A plans significantly increased the D₂ of PTV, and H-3A plans showed comparable or even better target dosimetry (better conformity) compared to the three plans on C-arm accelerators. Compared to T and TB plans, the two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the D₁₀₀ and mean doses of bilateral hippocampus, the mean doses of eyeballs, and the maximum doses of lenses. D₁₀₀ of hippocampus was reduced in TrueBeam plans comparing to Trilogy plans. The FFF plans on TrueBeam also represented advantages in D_mean and D₁₀₀ of hippocampas, D_mean and D_max of eyeballs, and the D_max of lenses compared to FF plans. Halcyon plans and TrueBeam plans with FFF mode increased the MUs compared to FF plans. Comparing to H-2A, the H-3A plans exhibited additional dosimetric advantages, including D₂, CI and HI of PTV, as well as the maximum and mean doses of hippocampus and eyeballs, and the maximum doses of optic nerves and brainstem. The two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the delivery time and showed the higher gamma passing rate than the three plans of C-arm accelerators.

Conclusions

Compared with the C-arm accelerators, the dose of hippocampus and the delivery times on Halcyon are relatively significantly reduced for hippocampal-sparing PCI. Three arcs are recommended for VMAT plans with the Halcyon in hippocampal-sparing PCI.

Verification of patient‐setup accuracy using a surface imaging system with steep measurement angle

PURPOSE

We evaluate an SGRT device (Voxelan HEV-600 M/RMS) installed with Radixact, with the view angle of the Voxelan's camera at 74 degrees. The accuracy of Voxelan with this steep angle was evaluated with phantom experiments and inter-fractional setup errors of patients.

METHODS

In the phantom experiments, the difference between the measured values of Voxelan from the truth was evaluated for translations and rotations. The inter-fractional setup error between the setup using skin markers with laser localizer (laser setup: LS) and the setup using Voxelan (surface setup: SS) was compared for head and neck (N = 19), chest (N = 7) and pelvis (N = 9) cases. The inter-fractional setup error was calculated by subtracting from bone matching by megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) as ground truth.

RESULTS

From the phantom experiments, the average difference between the measured values of Voxelan from the truth was within 1 mm and 1 degree. In all cases, inter-fractional setup error based on MVCT was not significantly different between LS and SS by Welch's t-test (P > 0.05). The vector offset of the LS for head and neck, chest, and pelvis were 6.5, 9.6, and 9.6 mm, respectively, and that of the SS were 5.8, 8.6, and 12.6 mm, respectively. Slight improvement was observed for the head and neck, and chest cases, however, pelvis cases were not improved because the umbilical region could not be clearly visualized as a reference.

CONCLUSION

The results show that SS in Voxelan with an installation angle of 74 degrees is equal to or better than LS.

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

Purpose: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis.

Methods and materials: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods.

Results: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%).

Conclusions: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.

Intra-fraction motion monitoring during fast modulated radiotherapy delivery in a closed-bore gantry linac

•

Surface scanning allows for continuous intra fraction monitoring in a closed-bore gantry.

•

Patient baseline drift during fast cone-beam computed tomography imaging is non-negligible.

•

Peak-to-peak breathing amplitude is smaller than baseline drift in 69% of fractions.

Background and purpose

New closed-bore linacs allow for highly streamlined workflows and fast treatment delivery resulting in brief treatment sessions. Motion management technology has only recently been integrated inside the bore, yet is required in future online adaptive workflows. We measured patient motion during every step of the workflow: image acquisition, evaluation and treatment delivery using surface scanning.

Materials and methods

Nineteen patients treated for breast, lung or esophageal cancer were prospectively monitored from the end of setup to the end of treatment delivery in the Halcyon linac (Varian Medical Systems). Motion of the chest was tracked by way of 6 degrees-of-freedom surface tracking. Baseline drift and rate of drift were determined. The influence of fraction number, patient and fraction duration were analyzed with multi-way ANOVA.

Results

Median fraction duration was 4 min 48 s including the IGRT procedure (kV-CBCT acquisition and evaluation) (N = 221). Baseline drift at the end of the fraction was −1.8 ± 1.5 mm in the anterior-posterior, −0.0 ± 1.7 mm in the cranio-caudal direction and 0.1 ± 1.8 mm in the medio-lateral direction of which 75% occurred during the IGRT procedure. The highest rate of baseline drift was observed between 1 and 2 min after the end of patient setup (-0.62 mm/min). Baseline drift was patient and fraction duration dependent (p < 0.001), but fraction number was not significant (p = 0.33).

Conclusion

Even during short treatment sessions, patient baseline drift is not negligible. Drift is largest during the initial minutes after completion of patient setup, during verification imaging and evaluation. Patients will need to be monitored during extended contouring and re-planning procedures in online adaptive workflows.

Fast generation of lung SBRT plans with a knowledge-based planning model on ring-mounted Halcyon Linac

Purpose

To demonstrate fast treatment planning feasibility of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for centrally located lung tumors on Halcyon Linac via a previously validated knowledge‐based planning (KBP) model to support offline adaptive radiotherapy.

Materials/methods

Twenty previously treated non‐coplanar volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung SBRT plans (c‐Truebeam) on SBRT‐dedicated C‐arm Truebeam Linac were selected. Patients received 50 Gy in five fractions. c‐Truebeam plans were re‐optimized for Halcyon manually (m‐Halcyon) and with KBP model (k‐Halcyon). Both m‐Halcyon and k‐Halcyon plans were normalized for identical or better target coverage than clinical c‐Truebeam plans and compared for target conformity, dose heterogeneity, dose fall‐off, and dose tolerances to the organs‐at‐risk (OAR). Treatment delivery parameters and planning times were evaluated.

Results

k‐Halcyon plans were dosimetrically similar or better than m‐Halcyon and c‐Truebeam plans. k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon plan comparisons are presented with respect to c‐Truebeam. Differences in conformity index were statistically insignificant in k‐Halcyon and on average 0.02 higher (p = 0.04) in m‐Halcyon plans. Gradient index was on average 0.43 (p = 0.006) lower and 0.27 (p = 0.02) higher for k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon, respectively. Maximal dose 2 cm away in any direction from target was statistically insignificant. k‐Halcyon increased maximal target dose on average by 2.9 Gy (p < 0.001). Mean lung dose was on average reduced by 0.10 Gy (p = 0.004) in k‐Halcyon and increased by 0.14 Gy (p < 0.001) in m‐Halcyon plans. k‐Halcyon plans lowered bronchial tree dose on average by 1.2 Gy. Beam‐on‐time (BOT) was increased by 2.85 and 1.67 min, on average for k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon, respectively. k‐Halcyon plans were generated in under 30 min compared to estimated dedicated 180 ± 30 min for m‐Halcyon or c‐Truebeam plan.

Conclusion

k‐Halcyon plans were generated in under 30 min with excellent plan quality. This adaptable KBP model supports high‐volume clinics in the expansion or transfer of lung SBRT patients to Halcyon.

Operational Insights From the Longitudinal Analysis of a Linear Accelerator Machine Log

Purpose

This study aimed to perform a longitudinal analysis of linear accelerator (linac) technical faults reported with a cloud-based Machine Log system in use in a busy academic clinic and derive operational insights related to linac reliability, clinical utilization, and performance.

Methods

We queried the Machine Log system for the following parameters: linac type, number of reported technical faults, types of fault, number of faults where the linac was disabled, and estimated clinical downtime. The number of fractions treated and monitor units (MU) delivered were obtained from the record and verify system as metrics of linac utilization and to normalize the number of reported linac faults, facilitating inter-comparison. Two Varian TrueBeam C-arm linacs (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), one Varian 21iX C-arm linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), and one newly installed Varian Halcyon ring gantry linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) were evaluated. The linacs were studied over a 30-month period from September 2017 to March 2020. 

Results

Over 30 months, comprising 677 clinical days, 1234 faults were reported from all linacs, including 153 “linac down” events requiring rescheduling or cancellation of treatments. The TrueBeam linacs reported nearly twice as many imaging, multileaf collimator (MLC), and beam generation faults per fraction, and MU as the Halcyon. Halcyon experienced fewer beam generation/steering, accessory, and cooling-related faults than the other linacs but reported more computer and networking issues. Although it employs a relatively new MLC design compared to the C-arm linacs and delivers primarily intensity-modulated treatments, Halcyon reported fewer MLC faults than the other linacs. The 21iX linac had the fewest software-related faults but was subject to the most cooling-related faults, which we attributed to extensive use of this linac for treatment techniques with extended beam-on times.

Conclusions

A longitudinal analysis of a cloud-based Machine Log system yielded operational insights into the utilization, performance, and technical reliability of the linacs in use at our institution. Several trends in linac sub-system reliability were identified and could be attributed to either age, design, clinical use, or operational demands. The results of this analysis will be used as a basis for designing linac quality assurance schedules that reflect actual linac usage and observed sub-system reliability. Such a practice may contribute to a clinic workflow subject to fewer disruptions from linac faults, ultimately improving efficiency and patient safety.

Commissioning of optical surface imaging systems for cranial frameless stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate and compare different system calibration methods from a large cohort of systems to establish a commissioning procedure for surface‐guided frameless cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with intrafractional motion monitoring and gating. Using optical surface imaging (OSI) to guide non‐coplanar SRS treatments, the determination of OSI couch‐angle dependency, baseline drift, and gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency are essential.

Methods

Eleven trained physicists evaluated 17 OSI systems at nine clinical centers within our institution. Three calibration methods were examined, including 1‐level (2D), 2‐level plate (3D) calibration for both surface image reconstruction and isocenter determination, and cube phantom calibration to assess OSI‐megavoltage (MV) isocenter concordance. After each calibration, a couch‐angle dependency error was measured as the maximum registration error within the couch rotation range. A head phantom was immobilized on the treatment couch and the isocenter was set in the middle of the brain, marked with the room lasers. An on‐site reference image was acquired at couch zero, the facial region of interest (ROI) was defined, and static verification images were captured every 10° for 0°–90° and 360°–270°. The baseline drift was assessed with real‐time monitoring of the motionless phantom over 20 min. The gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency was assessed using the electron portal imaging device and gamma test (1%/1mm) in reference to non‐gated delivery.

Results

The maximum couch‐angle dependency error occurs in longitudinal and lateral directions and is reduced significantly (P < 0.05) from 1‐level (1.3 ± 0.4 mm) to 2‐level (0.8 ± 0.3 mm) calibration. The MV cube calibration does not further reduce the couch‐angle dependency error (0.8 ± 0.2 mm) on average. The baseline drift error plateaus at 0.3 ± 0.1 mm after 10 min. The gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency has a >98% gamma‐test passing rate.

Conclusion

A commissioning method is recommended using the 3D plate calibration, which is verified by radiation isocenter and validated with couch‐angle dependency, baseline drift, and gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency tests. This method characterizes OSI uncertainties, ensuring motion‐monitoring accuracy for SRS treatments.

Recent advanced in Surface Guided Radiation Therapy

The growing acceptance and recognition of Surface Guided Radiation Therapy (SGRT) as a promising imaging technique has supported its recent spread in a large number of radiation oncology facilities. Although this technology is not new, many aspects of it have only recently been exploited. This review focuses on the latest SGRT developments, both in the field of general clinical applications and special techniques.SGRT has a wide range of applications, including patient positioning with real-time feedback, patient monitoring throughout the treatment fraction, and motion management (as beam-gating in free-breathing or deep-inspiration breath-hold). Special radiotherapy modalities such as accelerated partial breast irradiation, particle radiotherapy, and pediatrics are the most recent SGRT developments.The fact that SGRT is nowadays used at various body sites has resulted in the need to adapt SGRT workflows to each body site. Current SGRT applications range from traditional breast irradiation, to thoracic, abdominal, or pelvic tumor sites, and include intracranial localizations.Following the latest SGRT applications and their specifications/requirements, a stricter quality assurance program needs to be ensured. Recent publications highlight the need to adapt quality assurance to the radiotherapy equipment type, SGRT technology, anatomic treatment sites, and clinical workflows, which results in a complex and extensive set of tests.Moreover, this review gives an outlook on the leading research trends. In particular, the potential to use deformable surfaces as motion surrogates, to use SGRT to detect anatomical variations along the treatment course, and to help in the establishment of personalized patient treatment (optimized margins and motion management strategies) are increasingly important research topics. SGRT is also emerging in the field of patient safety and integrates measures to reduce common radiotherapeutic risk events (e.g. facial and treatment accessories recognition).This review covers the latest clinical practices of SGRT and provides an outlook on potential applications of this imaging technique. It is intended to provide guidance for new users during the implementation, while triggering experienced users to further explore SGRT applications.