Target localization accuracy in frame‐based stereotactic radiosurgery: Comparison between MR‐only and MR/CT co‐registration approaches

PURPOSE: In frame‐based Gamma Knife (GK) stereotactic radiosurgery two treatment planning workflows are commonly employed; one based solely on magnetic resonance (MR) images and the other based on magnetic resonance/computed tomography (MR/CT) co‐registered images. In both workflows, target localization accuracy (TLA) can be deteriorated due to MR‐related geometric distortions and/or MR/CT co‐registration uncertainties. In this study, the overall TLA following both clinical workflows is evaluated for cases of multiple brain metastases. METHODS: A polymer gel‐filled head phantom, having the Leksell stereotactic headframe attached, was CT‐imaged and irradiated by a GK Perfexion unit. A total of 26 4‐mm shots were delivered at 26 locations directly defined in the Leksell stereotactic space (LSS), inducing adequate contrast in corresponding T2‐weighted (T2w) MR images. Prescribed shot coordinates served as reference locations. An additional MR scan was acquired to implement the “mean image” distortion correction technique. The TLA for each workflow was assessed by comparing the radiation‐induced target locations, identified in MR images, with corresponding reference locations. Using T1w MR and CT images of 15 patients (totaling 81 lesions), TLA in clinical cases was similarly assessed, considering MR‐corrected data as reference. For the MR/CT workflow, both global and region of interest (ROI)‐based MR/CT registration approaches were studied. RESULTS: In phantom measurements, the MR‐corrected workflow demonstrated unsurpassed TLA (median offset of 0.2 mm) which deteriorated for MR‐only and MR/CT workflows (median offsets of 0.8 and 0.6 mm, respectively). In real‐patient cases, the MR‐only workflow resulted in offsets that exhibit a significant positive correlation with the distance from the MR isocenter, reaching 1.1 mm (median 0.6 mm). Comparable results were obtained for the MR/CT‐global workflow, although a maximum offset of 1.4 mm was detected. TLA was improved with the MR/CT‐ROI workflow resulting in median/maximum offsets of 0.4 mm/1.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Subpixel TLA is achievable in all workflows. For the MR/CT workflow, a ROI‐based MR/CT co‐registration approach could considerably increase TLA and should be preferred instead of a global registration.