[Image-guided radiotherapy and partial delegation to radiotherapy technicians: Clermont-Ferrand experience]

Prospective medical analysis of radiation therapist image repositioning during image-guided radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Radiation oncologists are responsible for deciding which day-to-day variations are acceptable or not in the treatment setup. However, properly qualified and trained radiation therapists might be capable to perform image registration. We evaluated in our centre the capability and accuracy of radiation therapists to validate positioning images in a prospective study.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

A total of 84 patients treated for prostate, head and neck, lung or breast cancer was prospectively and randomly included from July 2011 to July 2013 in radiotherapy unit of our institution. For each patient, three positioning images were randomly analysed. Two radiation oncologists analysed all positioning images and shifts decided by the radiation therapists in an independent and blinded way. The radiation oncologists had to decide whether to validate or not this shift and give a corresponding additional shift, if any. A theoretical disagreement rate less than 5% between radiation therapists and radiation oncologists was planned.

RESULTS

A total of 240 images were analysed (head and neck: 15.0%; prostate: 14.2%; breast: 55.0%; lung: 15.8%). The global disagreement between radiation oncologists and radiation therapists for all the images analysed was 2.5% 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [1.0-5.0], corresponding to six images out of 240. A 100% agreement was reached for prostate and lung images, a 97.2% agreement for head and neck images and a 96.2% agreement for breast images.

CONCLUSIONS

The radiation therapist validation for repositioning images seemed accurate for image-guided radiotherapy in our institution. Periodic evaluation and in-house training are warranted when routine delegation of image registration to radiation therapists is considered.

Intraprostatic Fiducials Compared with Bony Anatomy and Skin Marks for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Prostate motion occurs during radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. We evaluated the input of intraprostatic fiducials for image-guided radiation therapy and compared it with bony anatomy and skin marks.

Methods

Eleven patients were implanted with three fiducial markers in the prostate. Daily sets of orthogonal kV-kV images were compared with digitally reconstructed radiography. Data were recorded for skin marks, bony anatomy, and fiducial markers. The variations were analyzed along three principal axes (left-right: LR, superoinferior: SI, and anteroposterior: AP).

Results

A total of 2,417 measures were recorded over 38 fractions of radiotherapy (76 Gy). Fiducial marker movements from bony anatomy were ≤ 5 mm for 84.2% (confidence interval: CI 95%±1.5), 91.3% (CI 95%±1.1), and 99.5% (CI 95%±0.4) of the measures along the AP, SI, and LR axes, respectively. Ninety-five percent of the shifts between a fiducial marker and the bony anatomy were < 8 mm in the AP and SI axes, and < 3 mm in the LR axis. Fiducial marker movements from skin marks were ≤ 5 mm for 64.8% (CI 95%±1.9), 79.2% (CI 95%±1.6), and 87.2% (CI 95%±1.3) of the measures along the AP, SI, and LR axes, respectively. Bony anatomy movements from skin marks were ≤ 5 mm for 84% (CI 95%±1.4), 92% (CI 95%±1.1), and 87% (CI 95%±1.3) of the measurements along the AP, SI, and LR axes, respectively.

Conclusion

Using fiducial markers provides better accuracy of repositioning of the prostate than using bony anatomy and skin marks for image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

[Image-guided radiotherapy: Overview of devices and practice in France in 2015]

Image-guided radiation therapy consists in acquiring in-room images to improve patient and mainly tumour set up accuracy. Many devices based on ionising or non-ionising radiations were designed in recent years. The use of such devices is of major importance in the management of patient radiotherapy courses. Those imaging sessions require to clearly define procedures in each radiotherapy department (image modality, acquisition frequency, corrective action, staff training and tasks). A quick review of the different existing image-guided radiation therapy devices is presented. In addition, the results of a French national survey about image-guided radiation therapy are presented: the survey is about both equipment and procedures. A total of 57 radiotherapy departments have participated, representing more than 160 treatment devices. About three linear accelerators out of four are equipped with an image-guiding device. The most common equipment is the CBCT system. Most centres have set up training sessions for the technicians to allow them to analyse online daily images. The management of in-room imaging dose is still under investigation, but many centres use an accounting scheme. While the devices are used to adjust the positioning of patients, in more than half of the centres, the practice had an impact on the choice of clinical and planning target volume margins. This survey led to an inventory in 2015, and could be renewed in some years.

[Interobserver variability study for daily cone beam computed tomography registration of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy]

PURPOSE

This work evaluated the interobserver variability in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration for prostate cancers treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve technologists realized 286 CBCT/CT registrations (bone registration followed by prostate to prostate registration). The registration results were compared to those obtained by two radiation oncologists (reference). Each technologist reported the shifts calculated by the software in all three axes. A statistical analysis allowed us to calculate the minimum threshold under which 95% of the observers found similar values. A variance analysis followed by the post hoc test were used to find differences in interobserver registration variability and determine whether any individual users performed registrations which differed significantly from those of the other users.

RESULTS

The registration differences compared to the reference in the three directions in terms of 95th percentile are: 2.1mm left-right, 3.5mm target-gun, 7.3mm anterior-posterior. In the posterior direction, 4% of the observers have found differences superior to 8mm, margin used in routine without the use of a daily CBCT. The variance test revealed a P-value <0.05 only for target-gun and for all observers there was no significant difference compared to the reference.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the interest of a 3D tissue registration for prostate treatments. The registration study showed a good interobserver reproducibility. This showed the importance of a daily CBCT/CT registration in prostate treatment with the possibility of a planning target volume margin reduction in the three directions. An evaluation of a partial delegation of registration to technologists should be done by the radiation oncologists.