Surface-guided tomotherapy improves positioning and reduces treatment time : A retrospective analysis of 16 835 treatment fractions
Haraldsson, André LU ; Ceberg, Sofie LU ; Ceberg, Crister LU
; Bäck, Sven
LU
; Engelholm, Silke
and Engström, Per E.
LU
(2020)
In Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
21(8).
p.139-148
- Abstract
Purpose: In this study, we have quantified the setup deviation and time gain when using fast surface scanning for daily setup/positioning with weekly megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and compared it to daily MVCT. Methods: A total of 16 835 treatment fractions were analyzed, treated, and positioned using our TomoTherapy HD (Accuray Inc., Madison, USA) installed with a Sentinel optical surface scanning system (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Patients were positioned using in-room lasers, surface scanning and MVCT for the first three fractions. For the remaining fractions, in-room laser was used for setup followed by daily surface scanning with MVCT once weekly. The three-dimensional (3D) setup correction for surface... (More)
Purpose: In this study, we have quantified the setup deviation and time gain when using fast surface scanning for daily setup/positioning with weekly megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and compared it to daily MVCT. Methods: A total of 16 835 treatment fractions were analyzed, treated, and positioned using our TomoTherapy HD (Accuray Inc., Madison, USA) installed with a Sentinel optical surface scanning system (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Patients were positioned using in-room lasers, surface scanning and MVCT for the first three fractions. For the remaining fractions, in-room laser was used for setup followed by daily surface scanning with MVCT once weekly. The three-dimensional (3D) setup correction for surface scanning was evaluated from the registration between MVCT and the planning CT. The setup correction vector for the in-room lasers was assessed from the surface scanning and the MVCT to planning CT registration. The imaging time was evaluated as the time from imaging start to beam-on. Results: We analyzed 894 TomoTherapy treatment plans from 2012 to 2018. Of all the treatment fractions performed with surface scanning, 90 % of the residual errors were within 2.3 mm for CNS (N = 284), 2.9 mm for H&N (N = 254), 8.7 mm for thorax (N = 144) and 10.9 for abdomen (N = 134) patients. The difference in residual error between surface scanning and positioning with in-room lasers was significant (P < 0.005) for all sites. The imaging time was assessed as total imaging time per treatment plan, modality, and treatment site and found that surface scanning significantly reduced patient on-couch time compared to MVCT for all treatment sites (P < 0.005). Conclusions: The results indicate that daily surface scanning with weekly MVCT can be used with the current target margins for H&N, CNS, and thorax, with reduced imaging time.
(Less)
- author
- Haraldsson, André
LU
; Ceberg, Sofie
LU
; Ceberg, Crister
LU
; Bäck, Sven
LU
; Engelholm, Silke
and Engström, Per E.
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2020-08
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- helical, radiotherapy, SGRT, surface scanning, tomotherapy
- in
- Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
- volume
- 21
- issue
- 8
- pages
- 10 pages
- publisher
- American College of Medical Physics
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85087158574
- pmid:32592288
- ISSN
- 1526-9914
- DOI
- 10.1002/acm2.12936
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 1c468643-2da1-44c4-8d64-4c68efef13df
- date added to LUP
- 2020-07-17 10:41:13
- date last changed
- 2024-04-17 12:55:18
@article{1c468643-2da1-44c4-8d64-4c68efef13df,
abstract = {{<p>Purpose: In this study, we have quantified the setup deviation and time gain when using fast surface scanning for daily setup/positioning with weekly megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and compared it to daily MVCT. Methods: A total of 16 835 treatment fractions were analyzed, treated, and positioned using our TomoTherapy HD (Accuray Inc., Madison, USA) installed with a Sentinel optical surface scanning system (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Patients were positioned using in-room lasers, surface scanning and MVCT for the first three fractions. For the remaining fractions, in-room laser was used for setup followed by daily surface scanning with MVCT once weekly. The three-dimensional (3D) setup correction for surface scanning was evaluated from the registration between MVCT and the planning CT. The setup correction vector for the in-room lasers was assessed from the surface scanning and the MVCT to planning CT registration. The imaging time was evaluated as the time from imaging start to beam-on. Results: We analyzed 894 TomoTherapy treatment plans from 2012 to 2018. Of all the treatment fractions performed with surface scanning, 90 % of the residual errors were within 2.3 mm for CNS (N = 284), 2.9 mm for H&N (N = 254), 8.7 mm for thorax (N = 144) and 10.9 for abdomen (N = 134) patients. The difference in residual error between surface scanning and positioning with in-room lasers was significant (P < 0.005) for all sites. The imaging time was assessed as total imaging time per treatment plan, modality, and treatment site and found that surface scanning significantly reduced patient on-couch time compared to MVCT for all treatment sites (P < 0.005). Conclusions: The results indicate that daily surface scanning with weekly MVCT can be used with the current target margins for H&N, CNS, and thorax, with reduced imaging time.</p>}},
author = {{Haraldsson, André and Ceberg, Sofie and Ceberg, Crister and Bäck, Sven and Engelholm, Silke and Engström, Per E.}},
issn = {{1526-9914}},
keywords = {{helical; radiotherapy; SGRT; surface scanning; tomotherapy}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{8}},
pages = {{139--148}},
publisher = {{American College of Medical Physics}},
series = {{Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics}},
title = {{Surface-guided tomotherapy improves positioning and reduces treatment time : A retrospective analysis of 16 835 treatment fractions}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12936}},
doi = {{10.1002/acm2.12936}},
volume = {{21}},
year = {{2020}},
}