Utilizing the TrueBeam Advanced Imaging Package to monitor intrafraction motion with periodic kV imaging and automatic marker detection during VMAT prostate treatments

Background Fiducial markers are frequently used before treatment for image‐guided patient setup in radiation therapy (RT), but can also be used during treatment for image‐guided intrafraction motion detection. This report describes our implementation of automatic marker detection with periodic kV im...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2020-03, Vol.21 (3), p.184-191
Hauptverfasser: Korpics, Mark C., Rokni, Michelle, Degnan, Michael, Aydogan, Bulent, Liauw, Stanley L., Redler, Gage
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Fiducial markers are frequently used before treatment for image‐guided patient setup in radiation therapy (RT), but can also be used during treatment for image‐guided intrafraction motion detection. This report describes our implementation of automatic marker detection with periodic kV imaging (TrueBeam v2.5) to monitor and correct intrafraction motion during prostate RT. Methods We evaluated the reproducibility and accuracy of software fiducial detection using a phantom with 3 implanted fiducial markers. Clinical implementation for patients with intraprostatic fiducials receiving volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) utilized periodic on‐board kV imaging with 10 s intervals during treatment delivery. For each image, the software automatically identified fiducial locations and determined whether their distance relative to planned locations were within a 3 mm tolerance. Motion was corrected if either ≥2 fiducials in a single image or ≥1 fiducial in sequential images were out of tolerance. Results Phantom studies demonstrated poorer performance of linear fiducials compared to collapsible fiducials, and wide variability to accurately detect fiducials across eight software settings. For any given setting, results were relatively reproducible and precise to ~0.5 mm. Across 17 patients treated with a median of 20 fractions, the software recommended a shift in 44% of fractions, and a shift was actually implemented after visual confirmation of movement greater than the 3 mm threshold in 20% of fractions. Adjustment of our approach led to improved accuracy for the latter (n = 7) patient subset. On average, table repositioning added 3.0 ± 0.3 min to patient time on table. Periodic kV imaging increased skin dose by an estimated 1 cGy per treatment arc. Conclusions Periodic kV imaging with automatic detection of motion during VMAT prostate treatments is commercially available, and can be successfully implemented to mitigate effects of intrafraction motion with careful attention to software settings.
ISSN:1526-9914
1526-9914
DOI:10.1002/acm2.12822