Cargando…

Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac

PURPOSE: In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Flores‐Martinez, Everardo, Cerviño, Laura I., Pawlicki, Todd, Kim, Gwe‐Ya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31738473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12772
_version_ 1783488516542431232
author Flores‐Martinez, Everardo
Cerviño, Laura I.
Pawlicki, Todd
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
author_facet Flores‐Martinez, Everardo
Cerviño, Laura I.
Pawlicki, Todd
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
author_sort Flores‐Martinez, Everardo
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac. METHODS: We performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV‐ or MV‐ CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles. RESULTS: Without the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re‐imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re‐imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6964767
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69647672020-01-27 Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac Flores‐Martinez, Everardo Cerviño, Laura I. Pawlicki, Todd Kim, Gwe‐Ya J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac. METHODS: We performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV‐ or MV‐ CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles. RESULTS: Without the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re‐imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re‐imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6964767/ /pubmed/31738473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12772 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Flores‐Martinez, Everardo
Cerviño, Laura I.
Pawlicki, Todd
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title_full Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title_fullStr Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title_short Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
title_sort assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the halcyon linac
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31738473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12772
work_keys_str_mv AT floresmartinezeverardo assessmentoftheuseofdifferentimaginganddeliverytechniquesforcranialtreatmentsonthehalcyonlinac
AT cervinolaurai assessmentoftheuseofdifferentimaginganddeliverytechniquesforcranialtreatmentsonthehalcyonlinac
AT pawlickitodd assessmentoftheuseofdifferentimaginganddeliverytechniquesforcranialtreatmentsonthehalcyonlinac
AT kimgweya assessmentoftheuseofdifferentimaginganddeliverytechniquesforcranialtreatmentsonthehalcyonlinac