A quality assurance procedure to evaluate cone-beam CT image center congruence with the radiation isocenter of a linear accelerator

Development of a digital star-shot analysis system for comparing radiation and imaging isocenters of proton treatment machine

PURPOSE

To directly compare the radiation and imaging isocenters of a proton treatment machine, we developed and evaluated a real-time radiation isocenter verification system.

METHODS

The system consists of a plastic scintillator (PI-200, Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), an acrylic phantom, a steel ball on the detachable plate, Raspberry Pi 4 (Raspberry Pi Foundation, London, UK) with camera module, and analysis software implemented through a Python-based graphical user interface (GUI). After kV imaging alignment of the steel ball, the imaging isocenter defined as the position of the steel ball was extracted from the optical image. The proton star-shot was obtained by optical camera because the scintillator converted proton beam into visible light. Then the software computed both the minimum circle radius and the radiation isocenter position from the star-shot. And the deviation between the imaging isocenter and radiation isocenter was calculated. We compared our results with measurements obtained by Gafchromic EBT3 film (Ashland, NJ, USA).

RESULTS

The minimum circle radii were averaged 0.29 and 0.41 mm while the position deviations from the radiation isocenter to the laser marker were averaged 0.99 and 1.07 mm, for our system and EBT3 film, respectively. Furthermore, the average position difference between the radiation isocenter and imaging isocenter was 0.27 mm for our system. Our system reduced analysis time by 10 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Our system provided automated star-shot analysis with sufficient accuracy, and it is cost-effective alternative to conventional film-based method for radiation isocenter verification.

Efficient quality assurance for isocentric stability in stereotactic body radiation therapy using machine learning

This study aims to predict isocentric stability for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments using machine learning (ML), covers the challenges of manual assessment and computational time for quality assurance (QA), and supports medical physicists to enhance accuracy. The isocentric parameters for collimator (C), gantry (G), and table (T) tests were conducted with the RUBY phantom during QA using TrueBeam linac for SBRT. This analysis combined statistical features from the IsoCheck EPID software. Five ML models, including logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), naive Bayes (NB), and support vector machines (SVM), were used to predict the outcome of the QA procedure. 247 Winston-Lutz (WL) tests were collected from 2020 to 2022. In our study, both DT and RF achieved the highest score on test accuracy (Acc. test) ranging from 93.5% to 99.4%, and area under curve (AUC) values from 90 to 100% on three modes (C, G, and T). The precision, recall, and F1 scores indicate the DT model consistently outperforms other ML models in predicting isocenter stability deviation in QA. The QA assessment using ML models can assist error prediction early to avoid potential harm during SBRT and ensure safe and effective patient treatments.

A Novel Approach for Position Verification and Dose Calculation through Local MVCT Reconstruction

Traditional positioning verification using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) may incur errors due to potential misalignments between the isocenter of CBCT and the treatment beams in radiotherapy. This study introduces an innovative method for verifying patient positioning in radiotherapy. Initially, the transmission images from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) are acquired from 10 distinct angles. Utilizing the ART-TV algorithm, a sparse reconstruction of local megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) is performed. Subsequently, this MVCT is aligned with the planning CT via a three-dimensional mutual information registration technique, pinpointing any patient-positioning discrepancies and facilitating corrective adjustments to the treatment setup. Notably, this approach employs the same radiation source as used in treatment to obtain three-dimensional images, thereby circumventing errors stemming from misalignment between the isocenter of CBCT and the accelerator. The registration process requires only 10 EPID images, and the dose absorbed during this process is included in the total dose calculation. The results show that our method's reconstructed MVCT images fulfill the requirements for registration, and the registration algorithm accurately detects positioning errors, thus allowing for adjustments in the patient's treatment position and precise calculation of the absorbed dose.

Evaluation of the effect of sagging correction calibration errors in radiotherapy software on image matching

To investigate the impact of sagging correction calibration errors in radiotherapy software on image matching. Three software applications were used, with and without a polymethyl methacrylate rod supporting the ball bearings (BB). The calibration error for sagging correction across nine flex maps (FMs) was determined by shifting the BB positions along the Left-Right (LR), Gun-Target (GT), and Up-Down (UD) directions from the reference point. Lucy and pelvic phantom cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images underwent auto-matching after modifying each FM. Image deformation was assessed in orthogonal CBCT planes, and the correlations among BB shift magnitude, deformation vector value, and differences in auto-matching were analyzed. The average difference in analysis results among the three softwares for the Winston-Lutz test was within 0.1 mm. The determination coefficients (R2) between the BB shift amount and Lucy phantom matching error in each FM were 0.99, 0.99, and 1.00 in the LR-, GT-, and UD-directions, respectively. The pelvis phantom demonstrated no cross-correlation in the GT direction during auto-matching error evaluation using each FM. The correlation coefficient (r) between the BB shift and the deformation vector value was 0.95 on average for all image planes. Slight differences were observed among software in the evaluation of the Winston-Lutz test. The sagging correction calibration error in the radiotherapy imaging system was caused by an auto-matching error of the phantom and deformation of CBCT images.

Investigation of Elekta AQUA software for kilovoltage to megavoltage radiation isocenter coincidence

Elekta AQUA v2.02 software (Gantry Runout isocenter test) was investigated as a tool for verification of kilovoltage to megavoltage gantry radiation isocenter coincidence. AQUA reported megavoltage (6 MV) isocenter was independent of field size over the range 5 cm × 5 cm to 20 cm × 20 cm. For the 10 cm × 10 cm field size, standard deviation in AQUA reported 3D megavoltage (6MV) isocenter over ten consecutive deliveries was less than 0.04 mm for any axis. Compared to the full AQUA test delivery (Gantry Runout), the shorter AQUA test version (Gantry Runout short) gave a root mean square MV isocenter (± 1 SD) difference of 0.18 mm ± 0.08. Across 7 machines, root mean square differences between AQUA and PIPS PRO reported MV isocenter (for 6 MV and 6 MV FFF beams) was 0.1 mm ± 0.1 mm, with most of the difference observed in the gun-target (Y-axis). AQUA 6 MV isocentre position was offset to gantry relative to Elekta XVI customer acceptance test (CAT) workflow by 0.25 mm to 0.52 mm. For 6 MV FFF beams, AQUA reported an MV isocenter of between 0.27 and 0.39 mm offset to target relative to Elekta CAT.

Development of a dedicated phantom for multi-target single-isocentre stereotactic radiosurgery end to end testing

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to design and manufacture a cost-effective end-to-end (E2E) phantom for quantifying the geometric and dosimetric accuracy of a linear accelerator based, multi-target single-isocenter (MTSI) frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) technique.

METHOD

A perspex Multi-Plug device from a Sun Nuclear ArcCheck phantom (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) was enhanced to make it more applicable for MTSI SRS E2E testing. The following steps in the SRS chain were then analysed using the phantom: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) distortion, planning computed tomography (CT) scan and MRI image registration accuracy, phantom setup accuracy using CBCT, dosimetric accuracy using ion chamber, planar film dose measurements and coincidence of linear accelerator mega-voltage (MV), and kilo-voltage (kV) isocenters using Winston-Lutz testing (WLT).

RESULTS

The dedicated E2E phantom was able to successfully quantify the geometric and dosimetric accuracy of the MTSI SRS technique. MRI distortions were less than 0.5 mm, or half a voxel size. The average MRI-CT registration accuracy was 0.15 mm (±0.31 mm), 0.20 mm (±0.16 mm), and 0.39 mm (±0.11 mm) in the superior/inferior, left/right and, anterior/posterior directions, respectively. The phantom setup accuracy using CBCT was better than 0.2 mm and 0.1°. Point dose measurements were within 5% of the treatment planning system predicted dose. The comparison of planar film doses to the planning system dose distributions, performed using gamma analysis, resulted in pass rates greater than 97% for 3%/1 mm gamma criteria. Finally, off-axis WLT showed MV/kV coincidence to be within 1 mm for off-axis distances up to 60 mm.

CONCLUSION

A novel, versatile and cost-effective phantom for comprehensive E2E testing of MTSI SRS treatments was developed, incorporating multiple detector types and fiducial markers. The phantom is capable of quantifying the accuracy of each step in the MTSI SRS planning and treatment process.

Quality assurance for a six degrees-of-freedom table using a 3D printed phantom

Purpose

To establish a streamlined end‐to‐end test of a 6 degrees‐of‐freedom (6DoF) robotic table using a 3D printed phantom for periodic quality assurance.

Methods

A 3D printed phantom was fabricated with translational and rotational offsets and an imbedded central ball‐bearing (BB). The phantom underwent each step of the radiation therapy process: CT simulation in a straight orientation, plan generation using the treatment planning software, setup to offset marks at the linac, registration and corrected 6DoF table adjustments via hidden target test, delivery of a Winston‐Lutz test to the BB, and verification of table positioning via field and laser lights. The registration values, maximum total displacement of the combined Winston‐Lutz fields, and a pass or fail criterion of the laser and field lights were recorded. The quality assurance process for each of the three linacs were performed for the first 30 days.

Results

Within a 95% confidence interval, the overall uncertainty values for both translation and rotation were below 1.0 mm and 0.5° for each linac respectively. When combining the registration values and other uncertainties for all three linacs, the average deviations were within 2.0 mm and 1.0° of the designed translation and rotation offsets of the 3D print respectively. For all three linacs, the maximum total deviation for the Winston‐Lutz test did not exceed 1.0 mm. Laser and light field verification was within tolerance every day for all three linacs given the latest guidance documentation for table repositioning.

Conclusion

The 3D printer is capable of accurately fabricating a quality assurance phantom for 6DoF positioning verification. The end‐to‐end workflow allows for a more efficient test of the 6DoF mechanics while including other important tests needed for routine quality assurance.

Submillimeter alignment of more than three contiguous vertebrae in spinal SRS/SBRT with 6-degree couch

The purpose of this study is to identify regions of spinal column in which more than three contiguous vertebrae can be reliably and quickly aligned within 1 mm using a 6‐degree (6D) couch and full body immobilization device. We analyzed 45 cases treated over a 3‐month period. Each case was aligned using ExacTrac x‐ray positioning system with integrated 6D couch to be within 1° and 1 mm in all six dimensions. Cone‐Beam computed tomography (CBCT) with at least 17.5 cm field of view (FOV) in the superior–inferior direction was taken immediately after ExacTrac positioning. It was used to examine the residual error of five to nine contiguous vertebrae visible in the FOV. The residual error of each vertebra was determined by expanding/contracting the vertebrae contour with a margin in millimeter integrals on the planning CT such that the new contours would enclose the corresponding vertebrae contour on CBCT. Submillimeter initial setup accuracy was consistently achieved in 98% (40/41) cases for a span of five or more vertebrae starting from T2 vertebra and extending caudally to S5. The curvature of spinal column along the cervical region and cervicothoracic junction was not easily reproducible between treatment and simulation. Fifty‐seven percent (8/14) of cases in this region had residual setup error of more than 1 mm in nearby vertebrae after alignment using 6D couch with image guidance. In conclusion, 6D couch integrated with image guidance is convenient and accurately corrects small rotational shifts. Consequently, more than three contiguous vertebrae can be aligned within 1 mm with immobilization that reliably reproduces the curvature of the thoracic and lumbar spinal column. Ability of accurate setup is becoming less a concern in limiting the use of stereotactic radiosurgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy to treat multilevel spinal target.

Automated replication of cone beam CT-guided treatments in the Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system for adaptive radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Time-consuming manual methods have been required to register cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with plans in the Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system in order to replicate delivered treatments for adaptive radiotherapy. These methods rely on fiducial marker (FM) placement during CBCT acquisition or the image mid-point to localise the image isocentre. A quality assurance study was conducted to validate an automated CBCT-plan registration method utilising the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Structure Set (RS) and Spatial Registration (RE) files created during online image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

METHODS

CBCTs of a phantom were acquired with FMs and predetermined setup errors using various online IGRT workflows. The CBCTs, DICOM RS and RE files were imported into Pinnacle(3) plans of the phantom and the resulting automated CBCT-plan registrations were compared to existing manual methods. A clinical protocol for the automated method was subsequently developed and tested retrospectively using CBCTs and plans for six bladder patients.

RESULTS

The automated CBCT-plan registration method was successfully applied to thirty-four phantom CBCT images acquired with an online 0 mm action level workflow. Ten CBCTs acquired with other IGRT workflows required manual workarounds. This was addressed during the development and testing of the clinical protocol using twenty-eight patient CBCTs. The automated CBCT-plan registrations were instantaneous, replicating delivered treatments in Pinnacle(3) with errors of ±0.5 mm. These errors were comparable to mid-point-dependant manual registrations but superior to FM-dependant manual registrations.

CONCLUSION

The automated CBCT-plan registration method quickly and reliably replicates delivered treatments in Pinnacle(3) for adaptive radiotherapy.

On the selection of gantry and collimator angles for isocenter localization using Winston-Lutz tests

In Winston-Lutz (WL) tests, the isocenter of a linear accelerator (linac) is determined as the intersection of radiation central axes (CAX) from multiple gantry, collimator, and couch angles. It is well known that the CAX can wobble due to mechanical imperfections of the linac. Previous studies suggested that the wobble varies with gantry and collimator angles. Therefore, the isocenter determined in the WL tests has a profound dependence on the gantry and collimator angles at which CAX are sampled. In this study, we evaluated the systematic and random errors in the iso-centers determined with different CAX sampling schemes. Digital WL tests were performed on six linacs. For each WL test, 63 CAX were sampled at nine gantry angles and seven collimator angles. Subsets of these data were used to simulate the effects of various CAX sampling schemes. An isocenter was calculated from each subset of CAX and compared against the reference isocenter, which was calculated from 48 opposing CAX. The differences between the calculated isocenters and the reference isocenters ranged from 0 to 0.8 mm. The differences diminished to less than 0.2 mm when 24 or more CAX were sampled. Isocenters determined with collimator 0° were vertically lower than those determined with collimator 90° and 270°. Isocenter localization errors in the longitudinal direction (along the axis of gantry rotation) showed a strong dependence on the collimator angle selected. The errors in all directions were significantly reduced when opposing collimator angles and opposing gantry angles were employed. The isocenter localization errors were less than 0.2 mm with the common CAX sampling scheme, which used four cardinal gantry angles and two opposing collimator angles. Reproducibility stud-ies on one linac showed that the mean and maximum variations of CAX during the WL tests were 0.053 mm and 0.30 mm, respectively. The maximal variation in the resulting isocenters was 0.068 mm if 48 CAX were used, or 0.13 mm if four CAX were used. Quantitative results from this study are useful for understanding and minimizing the isocenter uncertainty in WL tests.

Alignment of multiradiation isocenters for megavoltage photon beam

The accurate measurement of the linear accelerator (linac) radiation isocenter is critical, especially for stereotactic treatment. Traditional quality assurance (QA) procedure focuses on the measurement of single radiation isocenter, usually of 6 megavoltage (MV) photon beams. Single radiation isocenter is also commonly assumed in treatment planning systems (TPS). Due to different flattening filters and bending magnet and steering parameters, the radiation isocenter of one energy mode can deviate from another if no special effort was devoted. We present the first experience of the multiradiation isocenters alignment on an Elekta linac, as well as its corresponding QA procedure and clinical impact. An 8 mm ball‐bearing (BB) phantom was placed at the 6 MV radiation isocenter using an Elekta isocenter search algorithm, based on portal images. The 3D radiation isocenter shifts of other photon energy modes relative to the 6 MV were determined. Beam profile scanning for different field sizes was used as an independent method to determine the 2D multiradiation isocenters alignment. To quantify the impact of radiation isocenter offset on targeting accuracy, the 10 MV radiation isocenter was manually offset from that for 6 MV by adjusting the bending magnet current. Because our table isocenter was mechanically aligned to the 6 MV radiation isocenter, the deviation of the table isocentric rotation from the "shifted" 10 MV radiation isocenter after bending magnet adjustment was assessed. Winston‐Lutz test was also performed to confirm the overall radiation isocenter positioning accuracy for all photon energies. The portal image method showed the radiation isocenter of the 10 MV flattening filter‐free mode deviated from others before beam parameter adjustment. After the adjustment, the deviation was greatly improved from 0.96 to 0.35 mm relative to the 6 MV radiation isocenter. The same finding was confirmed by the profile‐scanning method. The maximum deviation of the table isocentric rotation from the 10 MV radiation isocenter was observed to linearly increase with the offset between 6 and 10 MV radiation isocenter; 1 mm radiation isocenter offset can translate to almost 2 mm maximum deviation of the table isocentric rotation from the 10 MV radiation isocenter. The alignment of the multiradiation isocenters is particularly important for high‐precision radiotherapy. Our study provides the medical physics community with a quantitative measure of the multiradiation isocenters alignment. A routine QA method should be considered, to examine the radiation isocenters alignment during the linac acceptance.

PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.bd, 87.56.Fc

Long-term stability and mechanical characteristics of kV digital imaging system for proton radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To quantitatively evaluate the long-term image panel positioning stability and gantry angle dependence for gantry-mounted kV imaging systems.

METHODS

For patient setup digital imaging systems in isocentric rotating proton beam delivery facilities, physical crosshairs are commonly inserted into the snout to define the kV x-ray beam isocenter. Utilizing an automatic detection algorithm, the authors analyzed the crosshair center positions in 2744 patient setup kV images acquired with the four imagers in two treatment rooms from January 2012 to January 2013. The crosshair position was used as a surrogate for imaging panel position, and its long-term stability at the four cardinal angles and the panel flex dependency on gantry angle was investigated.

RESULTS

The standard deviation of the panel position distributions was within 0.32 mm (with the range of variation less than ± 1.4 mm) in both the X-Z plane and Y direction. The mean panel inplane rotations were not more than 0.51° for the four panels at the cardinal angles, with standard deviations ≤ 0.26°. The panel position variations with gantry rotation due to gravity (flex) were within ± 4 mm, and were panel-specific.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors demonstrated that the kV image panel positions in our proton treatment system were highly reproducible at the cardinal angles over 13 months and also that the panel positions can be correlated to gantry angles. This result indicates that the kV image panel positions are stable over time; the amount of panel sag is predictable during gantry rotation and the physical crosshair for kV imaging may eventually be removed, with the imaging beam isocenter position routinely verified by adequate quality assurance procedures and measurements.

Three independent one-dimensional margins for single-fraction frameless stereotactic radiosurgery brain cases using CBCT

PURPOSE

Setting a proper margin is crucial for not only delivering the required radiation dose to a target volume, but also reducing the unnecessary radiation to the adjacent organs at risk. This study investigated the independent one-dimensional symmetric and asymmetric margins between the clinical target volume (CTV) and the planning target volume (PTV) for linac-based single-fraction frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

METHODS

The authors assumed a Dirac delta function for the systematic error of a specific machine and a Gaussian function for the residual setup errors. Margin formulas were then derived in details to arrive at a suitable CTV-to-PTV margin for single-fraction frameless SRS. Such a margin ensured that the CTV would receive the prescribed dose in 95% of the patients. To validate our margin formalism, the authors retrospectively analyzed nine patients who were previously treated with noncoplanar conformal beams. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used in the patient setup. The isocenter shifts between the CBCT and linac were measured for a Varian Trilogy linear accelerator for three months. For each plan, the authors shifted the isocenter of the plan in each direction by ±3 mm simultaneously to simulate the worst setup scenario. Subsequently, the asymptotic behavior of the CTV V80% for each patient was studied as the setup error approached the CTV-PTV margin.

RESULTS

The authors found that the proper margin for single-fraction frameless SRS cases with brain cancer was about 3 mm for the machine investigated in this study. The isocenter shifts between the CBCT and the linac remained almost constant over a period of three months for this specific machine. This confirmed our assumption that the machine systematic error distribution could be approximated as a delta function. This definition is especially relevant to a single-fraction treatment. The prescribed dose coverage for all the patients investigated was 96.1% ± 5.5% with an extreme 3-mm setup error in all three directions simultaneously. It was found that the effect of the setup error on dose coverage was tumor location dependent. It mostly affected the tumors located in the posterior part of the brain, resulting in a minimum coverage of approximately 72%. This was entirely due to the unique geometry of the posterior head.

CONCLUSIONS

Margin expansion formulas were derived for single-fraction frameless SRS such that the CTV would receive the prescribed dose in 95% of the patients treated for brain cancer. The margins defined in this study are machine-specific and account for nonzero mean systematic error. The margin for single-fraction SRS for a group of machines was also derived in this paper.

Implementation and evaluation of an end-to-end IGRT test

The goal of this work was to develop and evaluate an end‐to‐end test for determining and verifying image‐guided radiation therapy setup accuracy relative to the radiation isocenter. This was done by placing a cube phantom with a central tungsten sphere directly on the treatment table and offset from isocenter either by 5.0 mm in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical dimensions or by a random amount. A high‐resolution cone‐beam CT image was acquired and aligned with the tungsten sphere in the reference CT image. The table was shifted per this alignment, and megavoltage anterior–posterior and lateral images were acquired with the electronic portal imaging device. Agreement between the radiation isocenter (based on the MV field) and the center of the sphere (i.e., the alignment point based on kV imaging) was determined for each image via Winston‐Lutz analysis. This procedure was repeated 10 times to determine short‐term reproducibility, and then repeated daily for 51 days in a clinical setting. The short‐term reproducibility test yielded a mean 3D vector displacement of 0.9±0.15mm between the imaging‐based isocenter and the radiation isocenter, with a maximum displacement of 1.1 mm. The clinical reproducibility test yielded a mean displacement of 1.1±0.4mm with a maximum of 2.0 mm when the cube was offset by 5.0 mm, and a mean displacement of 0.9±0.3mm with a maximum of 1.8 mm when the cube was offset by a random amount. These differences were observed in all directions and were independent of the magnitude of the couch shift. This test was quick and easy to implement clinically and highlighted setup inaccuracies in an image‐guided radiation therapy environment.

PACS numbers: 87.55.km; 87.55.Qr; 87.56.Fc

Imaging system QA of a medical accelerator, Novalis Tx, for IGRT per TG 142: our 1 year experience

American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) task group (TG) 142 has recently published a report to update recommendations of the AAPM TG 40 report and add new recommendations concerning medical accelerators in the era of image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT). The recommendations of AAPM TG 142 on IGRT are timely. In our institute, we established a comprehensive imaging QA program on a medical accelerator based on AAPM TG 142 and implemented it successfully. In this paper, we share our one‐year experience and performance evaluation of an OBI capable linear accelerator, Novalis Tx, per TG 142 guidelines.

PACS numbers: 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C‐, 87.57.uq, 87.59.‐e, 87.59.bd