Evaluation of a proprietary software application for motion monitoring during stereotactic paraspinal treatment

PURPOSE: Stereotactic paraspinal treatment has become increasingly popular due to its favorable clinical outcome. An often‐overlooked factor that compromises the effectiveness of such treatment is the patients’ involuntary intrafractional motion. This work introduces and validates a proprietary software application that quantifies such motion for accurate patient monitoring during treatment. METHODS: The software uses a separate full‐trajectory cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) after daily patient setup to establish reference projections. Once treatment starts, the software grabs the intrafraction motion review (IMR) image acquired by TrueBeam via the Varian iTools Capture software and compares it against the corresponding reference projection to instantly determine the 2D shifts of the vertebrae being monitored using the classical downhill simplex optimization method. To evaluate its performance, an anthropomorphic phantom was shifted 0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, and 5 mm in three orthogonal directions, immediately after the full‐trajectory CBCT but prior to treatment. Depending on the scenario of shift, a nine‐field fixed gantry intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan and/or a four partial‐posterior‐arcs volume‐modulated radiation therapy (VMAT) plan were delivered. For the IMRT plan, three IMR images were acquired sequentially every 200 monitor units (MU) at each treatment angle. For the VMAT plan, one IMR image was acquired every 15° of each arc. For each IMR image, the software‐reported 2D shift was compared with the ground truth. Certain tests were repeated with 1°, 2°, and 3° of rotation, pitch, and roll, respectively. Some of these tests were also repeated independently on separate days. RESULTS: Based on the group of tests that involved only the IMRT delivery, the maximum standard deviation of the software‐reported shifts for each set of three IMR images was 0.16 mm, with 95th percentile at 0.02 mm. For translational shift, the maximum registration error was 0.44 mm, with 95th percentile at 0.23 mm. Left unaccounted for, rotation and pitch degraded the registration accuracy mainly in the longitudinal direction, while roll degraded it mainly in the lateral direction. The degradation of registration accuracy is positively related to the degree of rotation, pitch, and roll. The maximum registration errors under 3° rotation, pitch, and roll were 2.97, 1.44, 2.72 mm, respectively. Based on the group of tests that compared IMRT delivery with VMAT delivery, the registration errors slightly increased as magnitude of shifts increased; however, they were well under the 0.5‐mm threshold. No significant differences in registration errors were observed between IMRT and VMAT deliveries. In addition, the variation in registration errors among different days was limited for both IMRT and VMAT deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: Our proprietary software has high repeatability, both intrafractionally and interfractionally, and high accuracy in registering IMR images with the reference projections for motion monitoring, regardless of the magnitude of shifts or treatment delivery technique. Rotation, pitch, and roll degrade registration accuracy and need to be accounted for in the future work.