[en] Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) through daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has significantly impacted the role of the radiation therapist at our institution; continuing education is crucial to ensure safe practice of technology in the clinical environment. The purpose of this work was to develop and implement an electronic learning (eLearning) module as a yearly refresher for CBCT-practicing radiation therapists.

[en] Purpose: To determine the geometric accuracy of lung cancer radiotherapy using daily volumetric, cone-beam CT (CBCT) image guidance and online couch position adjustment. Methods and Materials: Initial setup accuracy using localization CBCT was analyzed in three lung cancer patient cohorts. The first (n = 19) involved patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The second (n = 48) and third groups (n = 20) involved patients with locally advanced NSCLC adjusted with manual and remote-controlled couch adjustment, respectively. For each group, the couch position was adjusted when positional discrepancies exceeded ±3 mm in any direction, with the remote-controlled couch correcting all three directions simultaneously. Adjustment accuracy was verified with a second CBCT. Population-based setup margins were derived from systematic (Σ) and random (σ) positional errors for each group. Results: Localization imaging demonstrates that 3D positioning errors exceeding 5 mm occur in 54.5% of all delivered fractions. CBCT reduces these errors; post-correction Σ and σ ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 mm for Group 1, with 82% of all fractions within ±3 mm. For Group 2, Σ and σ ranged between 0.8 and 1.8 mm, with 76% of all treatment fractions within ±3 mm. For Group 3, the remote-controlled couch raised this to 84%, and Σ and σ were reduced to 0.4 to 1.7 mm. For each group, the postcorrection setup margins were 4 to 6 mm, 3 to 4 mm, and 2 to 3 mm, respectively. Conclusions: Using IGRT, high geometric accuracy is achievable for NSCLC patients, potentially leading to reduced PTV margins, improved outcomes and empowering adaptive radiation therapy for lung cancer

[en] Daily volumetric imaging through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has greatly impacted the roles and responsibilities of radiation therapists (RTTs). A CBCT eLearning module was developed at our cancer centre to equip RTTs with critical thinking skills and clinical judgement required in a CBCT guidance environment. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the electronic module and its impact on the learner's outcome from the perspectives of various radiation therapy professions and to assess the applicability of the eLearning module to RTTs, oncologists, and physicists.

[en] Online treatment setup verification through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in pancreatic cancer patients is limited by low soft tissue contrast. This study aims to quantify the relative positional displacements between bony anatomy and endobiliary stents as surrogates for pancreatic cancers.

[en] We report the setup reproducibility of thoracic and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) radiotherapy (RT) patients for 2 immobilization methods evaluated through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance, and present planning target volume (PTV) margin calculations made on the basis of these observations. Daily CBCT images from 65 patients immobilized in a chestboard (CB) or evacuated cushion (EC) were registered to the planning CT using automatic bony anatomy registration. The standardized region-of-interest for matching was focused around vertebral bodies adjacent to tumor location. Discrepancies >3 mm between the CBCT and CT datasets were corrected before initiation of RT and verified with a second CBCT to assess residual error (usually taken after 90 s of the initial CBCT). Positional data were analyzed to evaluate the magnitude and frequencies of setup errors before and after correction. The setup distributions were slightly different for the CB (797 scans) and EC (757 scans) methods, and the probability of adjustment at a 3-mm action threshold was not significantly different (p = 0.47). Setup displacements >10 mm in any direction were observed in 10% of CB fractions and 16% of EC fractions (p = 0.0008). Residual error distributions after CBCT guidance were equivalent regardless of immobilization method. Using a published formula, the PTV margins for the CB were L/R, 3.3 mm; S/I, 3.5 mm; and A/P, 4.6 mm), and for EC they were L/R, 3.7 mm; S/I, 3.3 mm; and A/P, 4.6 mm. In the absence of image guidance, the CB slightly outperformed the EC in precision. CBCT allows reduction to a single immobilization system that can be chosen for efficiency, logistics, and cost. Image guidance allows for increased geometric precision and accuracy and supports a corresponding reduction in PTV margin.

[en] Purpose: Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) involves tight planning margins and steep dose gradients to the surrounding organs at risk (OAR). This study aimed to assess intrafraction motion using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for spine SBRT patients treated using three immobilization devices. Methods and Materials: Setup accuracy using CBCT was retrospectively analyzed for 102 treated spinal metastases in 84 patients. Thoracic and lumbar spine patients were immobilized with either an evacuated cushion (EC, n = 24) or a semirigid vacuum body fixation (BF, n = 60). For cases treated at cervical/upper thoracic (thoracic [T]1–T3) vertebrae, a thermoplastic S-frame (SF) mask (n = 18) was used. Patient setup was corrected by using bony anatomy image registration and couch translations only (no rotation corrections) with shifts confirmed on verification CBCTs. Repeat imaging was performed mid- and post-treatment. Patient translational and rotational positioning data were recorded to calculate means, standard deviations (SD), and corresponding margins ± 2 SD for residual setup errors and intrafraction motion. Results: A total of 355 localizations, 333 verifications, and 248 mid- and 280 post-treatment CBCTs were analyzed. Residual translations and rotations after couch corrections (verification scans) were similar for all immobilization systems, with SDs of 0.6 to 0.9 mm in any direction and 0.9° to 1.6°, respectively. Margins to encompass residual setup errors after couch corrections were within 2 mm. Including intrafraction motion, as measured on post-treatment CBCTs, SDs for total setup error in the left-right, cranial-caudal, and anterior-posterior directions were 1.3, 1.2, and 1.0 mm for EC; 0.9, 0.7, and 0.9 mm for BF; and 1.3, 0.9, and 1.1 mm for SF, respectively. The calculated margins required to encompass total setup error increased to 3 mm for EC and SF and remained within 2 mm for BF. Conclusion: Following image guidance, residual setup errors for spine SBRT were similar across three immobilization systems. The BF device resulted in the least amount of intrafraction motion, and based on this device, we justify a 2-mm margin for the planning OAR and target volume.

[en] Purpose: To assess intrafractional geometric accuracy of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) patients treated with volumetric image guidance. Methods and Materials: Treatment setup accuracy was analyzed in 133 SBRT patients treated via research ethics board–approved protocols. For each fraction, a localization cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was acquired for soft-tissue registration to the internal target volume, followed by a couch adjustment for positional discrepancies greater than 3 mm, verified with a second CBCT scan. CBCT scans were also performed at intrafraction and end fraction. Patient positioning data from 2047 CBCT scans were recorded to determine systematic (Σ) and random (σ) uncertainties, as well as planning target volume margins. Data were further stratified and analyzed by immobilization method (evacuated cushion [n = 75], evacuated cushion plus abdominal compression [n = 33], or chest board [n = 25]) and by patients’ Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS): 0 (n = 31), 1 (n = 70), or 2 (n = 32). Results: Using CBCT internal target volume was matched within ±3 mm in 16% of all fractions at localization, 89% at verification, 72% during treatment, and 69% after treatment. Planning target volume margins required to encompass residual setup errors after couch corrections (verification CBCT scans) were 4 mm, and they increased to 5 mm with target intrafraction motion (post-treatment CBCT scans). Small differences (<1 mm) in the cranial–caudal direction of target position were observed between the immobilization cohorts in the localization, verification, intrafraction, and post-treatment CBCT scans (p < 0.01). Positional drift varied according to patient PS, with the PS 1 and 2 cohorts drifting out of position by mid treatment more than the PS 0 cohort in the cranial-caudal direction (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Image guidance ensures high geometric accuracy for lung SBRT irrespective of immobilization method or PS. A 5-mm setup margin suffices to address intrafraction motion. This setup margin may be further reduced by strategies such as frequent image guidance or volumetric arc therapy to correct or limit intrafraction motion.

[en] Purpose: To assess the relative effectiveness of five image-guidance (IG) frequencies on reducing patient positioning inaccuracies and setup margins for locally advanced lung cancer patients. Methods and Materials: Daily cone-beam computed tomography data for 100 patients (4,237 scans) were analyzed. Subsequently, four less-than-daily IG protocols were simulated using these data (no IG, first 5-day IG, weekly IG, and alternate-day IG). The frequency and magnitude of residual setup error were determined. The less-than-daily IG protocols were compared against the daily IG, the assumed reference standard. Finally, the population-based setup margins were calculated. Results: With the less-than-daily IG protocols, 20-43% of fractions incurred residual setup errors ≥5 mm; daily IG reduced this to 6%. With the exception of the first 5-day IG, reductions in systematic error (Σ) occurred as the imaging frequency increased and only daily IG provided notable random error (σ) reductions (Σ = 1.5-2.2 mm, σ = 2.5-3.7 mm; Σ = 1.8-2.6 mm, σ = 2.5-3.7 mm; and Σ = 0.7-1.0 mm, σ = 1.7-2.0 mm for no IG, first 5-day IG, and daily IG, respectively. An overall significant difference in the mean setup error was present between the first 5-day IG and daily IG (p < .0001). The derived setup margins were 5-9 mm for less-than-daily IG and were 3-4 mm with daily IG. Conclusion: Daily cone-beam computed tomography substantially reduced the setup error and could permit setup margin reduction and lead to a reduction in normal tissue toxicity for patients undergoing conventionally fractionated lung radiotherapy. Using first 5-day cone-beam computed tomography was suboptimal for lung patients, given the inability to reduce the random error and the potential for the systematic error to increase throughout the treatment course.

[en] Purpose: The present study used cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to measure the inter- and intrafraction uncertainties for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using the Leksell Gamma Knife (GK). Methods and Materials: Using a novel CBCT system adapted to the GK radiosurgery treatment unit, CBCT images were acquired immediately before and after treatment for each treatment session within the context of a research ethics board–approved prospective clinical trial. Patients were immobilized in the Leksell coordinate frame (LCF) for both volumetric CBCT imaging and GK-SRS delivery. The relative displacement of the patient's skull to the stereotactic reference (interfraction motion) was measured for each CBCT scan. Differences between the pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were used to determine the intrafraction motion. Results: We analyzed 20 pre- and 17 post-treatment CBCT scans in 20 LCF patients treated with SRS. The mean translational pretreatment setup error ± standard deviation in the left-right, anteroposterior, and craniocaudal directions was −0.19 ± 0.32, 0.06 ± 0.27, and −0.23 ± 0.2 mm, with a maximum of −0.74, −0.53, and −0.68 mm, respectively. After an average time between the pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans of 82 minutes (range 27-170), the mean intrafraction error ± standard deviation for the LCF was −0.03 ± 0.05, −0.03 ± 0.18, and −0.03 ± 0.12 mm in the left-right, anteroposterior, and craniocaudual direction, respectively. Conclusions: Using CBCT on a prototype image guided GK Perfexion unit, we were able to measure the inter- and intrafraction positional changes for GK-SRS using the invasive frame. In the era of image guided radiation therapy, the use of CBCT image guidance for both frame- and non–frame-based immobilization systems could serve as a useful quality assurance tool. Our preliminary measurements can guide the application of achievable thresholds for inter- and intrafraction discrepancy when moving to a frameless approach.