Dose variations caused by setup errors in intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy: A PRESAGE study

Evaluating the positional uncertainty of intrafraction, adjacent fields, and daily setup with the BrainLAB ExacTrac system in patients who are receiving craniospinal irradiation

Purpose

To investigate the daily setup, interfraction motion, variability in the junction areas, and dosimetric effect in craniospinal irradiation (CSI) patients.

Methods

Fifteen CSI patients who had undergone split‐field IMRT were followed in the study. Previous, middle, and posttreatment, each target volume position was evaluated using the ExacTrac system. Interfraction and intrafraction motions, the margin of the junction in adjacent targets volumes, and the dosimetric effect of the longitudinal residual error were analyzed.

Results

The lowest attainment rate within the tolerance of the initial setup error was 66.79% in six directions. The values of the initial error were within 15 mm (SD 4.5 mm) in the translation direction and 5° (SD 1.3°) in the rotation direction after the transposition of the treatment isocenter. With the guidance of the ExacTrac system, the interfraction and intrafraction residual errors were almost within the tolerance after correction, the margin of CTV‐to‐PCTV was in the range of target expansion criteria. The residual longitudinal errors resulted in only slight changes in the mean doses of PGTV and PCTV, while the maximum dose of the spinal cord increased by 16.1%. The patients did not exhibit any side‐effects by the overall treatment during the follow‐up period.

Conclusions

Position correction is necessary after setup and the transposition of the treatment isocenter. Intra‐fraction motion in the lateral direction should be monitored throughout treatment. The position errors in junction areas are almost within the tolerance after correction. The patients did not exhibit any side‐effects by the overall treatment.

Edge effects in 3D dosimetry: characterisation and correction of the non-uniform dose response of PRESAGE®

Previous work has shown that PRESAGE® can be used successfully to perform 3D dosimetric measurements of complex radiotherapy treatments. However, measurements near the sample edges are known to be difficult to achieve. This is an issue when the doses at air-material interfaces are of interest, for example when investigating the electron return effect (ERE) present in treatments delivered by magnetic resonance (MR)-linac systems. To study this effect, a set of 3.5 cm-diameter cylindrical PRESAGE® samples was uniformly irradiated with multiple dose fractions, using either a conventional linac or an MR-linac. The samples were imaged between fractions using an optical-CT, to read out the corresponding accumulated doses. A calibration between TPS-predicted dose and optical-CT pixel value was determined for individual dosimeters as a function of radial distance from the axis of rotation. This data was used to develop a correction that was applied to four additional samples of PRESAGE® of the same formulation, irradiated with 3D-CRT and IMRT treatment plans, to recover significantly improved 3D measurements of dose. An alternative strategy was also tested, in which the outer surface of the sample was physically removed prior to irradiation. Results show that for the formulation studied here, PRESAGE® samples have a central region that responds uniformly and an edge region of 6-7 mm where there is gradual increase in dosimeter response, rising to an over-response of 24%-36% at the outer boundary. This non-uniform dose response increases in both extent and magnitude over time. Both mitigation strategies investigated were successful. In our four exemplar studies, we show how discrepancies at edges are reduced from 13%-37% of the maximum dose to between 2 and 8%. Quantitative analysis shows that the 3D gamma passing rates rise from 90.4, 69.3, 63.7 and 43.6% to 97.3, 99.9, 96.7 and 98.9% respectively.

Dosimetric impact of uncorrected systematic yaw rotation in VMAT for peripheral lung SABR

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of uncorrected yaw rotational error on both target coverage and OAR dose metrics in this patient population.

Background

Rotational set up errors can be difficult to correct in lung VMAT SABR treatments, and may lead to a change in planned dose distributions.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively applied systematic yaw rotational errors in 1° degree increments up to -5° and +5° degrees in 16 VMAT SABR plans. The impact on PTV and OARs (oesophagus, spinal canal, heart, airway, chest wall, brachial plexus, lung) was evaluated using a variety of dose metrics. Changes were assessed in relation to percentage deviation from approved planned dose at 0 degrees.

Results

Target coverage was largely unaffected with the largest mean and maximum percentage difference being 1.4% and 6% respectively to PTV D98% at +5 degrees yaw.Impact on OARs was varied. Minimal impact was observed in oesophagus, spinal canal, chest wall or lung dose metrics. Larger variations were observed in the heart, airway and brachial plexus. The largest mean and maximum percentage differences being 20.77% and 311% respectively at -5 degrees yaw to airway D0.1cc, however, the clinical impact was negligible as these variations were observed in metrics with minimal initial doses.

Conclusions

No clinically unacceptable changes to dose metrics were observed in this patient cohort but large percentage deviations from approved dose metrics in OARs were noted. OARs with associated PRV structures appear more robust to uncorrected rotational error.

eNAL++: a new and effective off-line correction protocol for rotational setup errors when using a robotic couch

Cone‐beam CTs (CBCTs) installed on a linear accelerator can be used to provide fast and accurate automatic six degrees of freedom (6DoF) vector displacement information of the patient position just prior to radiotherapy. These displacement corrections can be made with 6DoF couches, which are primarily used for patient setup correction during stereotactic treatments. When position corrections are performed daily prior to treatment, the correction is deemed "online". However, the interface between the first generation 6DoF couches and the imaging software is suboptimal. The system requires the user to select manually the patient and type the match result by hand. The introduction of 6DoF setup correction for treatments, other than stereotactic radiotherapy, is hindered by both the high workload associated with the online protocol and the interface issues. For these reasons, we developed software that fully integrates the 6DoF couch with the linear accelerator. To further reduce both the workload and imaging dose, three off‐line 6DoF correction protocols were analyzed. While the protocols require significantly less imaging, the analysis assessed their ability to reduce the systematic rotation setup correction. CBCT scans were acquired for 19 patients with intracranial meningioma. The total number of CBCT scans was 856, acquired before and after radiotherapy treatment fractions. The patient positions were corrected online using a 6DoF robotic couch. The effects on the residual rotational setup error for three off‐line protocols were simulated. The three protocols used were two known off‐line protocols, the no action level (NAL) and the extended no action level (eNAL), and one new off‐line protocol (eNAL++). The residual setup errors were compared using the systematic and random components of the total setup error. The reduction of the rotational setup error of these protocols was optimized with respect to the required workload (i.e., number of CBCTs required). Rotational errors up to 3.2° were found after initial patient setup. The eNAL++ protocol achieved a reduction of the systematic rotational setup error similar to that of the online protocol (pitch from 0.8° to 0.3°), while requiring 70% fewer CBCTs. With a 6DoF robotic couch, translation, and rotation patient position corrections can be performed off‐line to reduce the systematic setup error, workload, and patient scan dose.

PACS numbers: 87.56.Fc, 87.56.Da, 87.57.‐s