No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Development of a video image-based QA system for the positional accuracy of dynamic tumor tracking irradiation in the Vero4DRT system
1.P. J. Keall, G. S. Mageras, J. M. Balter, R. S. Emery, K. M. Forster, S. B. Jiang, J. M. Kapatoes, D. A. Low, M. J. Murphy, B. R. Murray, C. R. Ramsey, M. B. Van Herk, S. S. Vedam, J. W. Wong, and E. Yorke, “The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76,” Med. Phys. 33, 3874–3900 (2006).
2.S. H. Benedict, K. M. Yenice, D. Followill, J. M. Galvin, W. Hinson, B. Kavanagh, P. Keall, M. Lovelock, S. Meeks, L. Papiez, T. Purdie, R. Sadagopan, M. C. Schell, B. Salter, D. J. Schlesinger, A. S. Shiu, T. Solberg, D. Y. Song, V. Stieber, and R. Timmerman, “Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101,” Med. Phys. 37, 4078–4101 (2010).
3.T. Depuydt, D. Verellen, O. Haas, T. Gevaert, N. Linthout, M. Duchateau, K. Tournel, T. Reynders, K. Leysen, M. Hoogeman, G. Storme, and M. De Ridder, “Geometric accuracy of a novel gimbals based radiation therapy tumor tracking system,” Radiother. Oncol. 98, 365–372 (2011).
4.T. Depuydt, K. Poels, D. Verellen, B. Engels, C. Collen, C. Haverbeke, T. Gevaert, N. Buls, G. Van Gompel, T. Reynders, M. Duchateau, K. Tournel, M. Boussaer, F. Steenbeke, F. Vandenbroucke, and M. De Ridder, “Initial assessment of tumor tracking with a gimbaled Linac system in clinical circumstances: A patient simulation study,” Radiother. Oncol. 106, 236–240 (2013).
5.N. Mukumoto, M. Nakamura, A. Sawada, Y. Suzuk, K. Takahashi, Y. Miyabe, S. Kaneko, T. Mizowaki, M. Kokubo, and M. Hiraoka, “Accuracy verification of infrared marker-based dynamic tumor-tracking irradiation using the gimbaled x-ray head of the Vero4DRT (MHI-TM2000),” Med. Phys. 40, 041706 (9pp.) (2013).
6.Y. Kamino, K. Takayama, M. Kokubo, Y. Narita, E. Hirai, N. Kawawda, T. Mizowaki, Y. Nagata, T. Nishidai, and M. Hiraoka, “Development of a four-dimensional image-guided radiotherapy system with a gimbaled x-ray head,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 66, 271–278 (2006).
7.Y. Kamino, S. Miura, M. Kokubo, I. Yamashita, E. Hirai, M. Hiraoka, and J. Ishikawa, “Development of an ultrasmall C-band linear accelerator guide for a four-dimensional image-guided radiotherapy system with a gimbaled x-ray head,” Med. Phys. 34, 1797–1808 (2007).
9.K.-H. Cheong, S.-K. Kang, M. Lee, S. S. Kim, S. Park, T. J. Hwang, K. J. Kim, D. H. Oh, H. Bae, and T. S. Suh, “Evaluation of delivered monitor unit accuracy of gated step-and-shoot IMRT using a two-dimensional detector array,” Med. Phys. 37, 1146–1151 (2010).
10.C. Ong, W. F. Verbakel, J. P. Cuijpers, B. J. Slotman, and S. Senan, “Dosimetric impact of interplay effect on RapidArc lung stereotactic treatment delivery,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 79, 305–311 (2011).
11.C. W. Hurkmans, M. van Lieshout, D. Schuring, M. J. van Heumen, J. P. Cuijpers, F. J. Lagerwaard, J. Widder, U. A. van der Heide, and S. Senan, “Quality assurance of 4D-CT scan techniques in multicenter phase III trial of surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy (radiosurgery or surgery for operable early stage (stage 1A) non-small-cell lung cancer [ROSEL] study),” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 80, 918–927 (2011).
12.M. Imura, K. Yamazaki, H. Shirato, R. Onimaru, M. Fujino, S. Shimizu, T. Harada, S. Ogura, H. Dosaka-Akita, K. Miyasaka, and M. Nishimura, “Insertion and fixation of fiducial markers for setup and tracking of lung tumors in radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 63, 1442–1447 (2005).
13.K. Taguchi, K. Ebe, A. Hiyama, K. Tsukamoto, H. Sasai, Y. Nakashima, S. Yamatogi, R. Kanzaki, T. Matsumoto, and N. Matsunaga, “Changes in the distance between an internal fiducial marker and a motion tumor on fluoroscopic real-time tumor-tracking system evaluated with an in-room CT system,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 66, S612 (2006).
14.M. Akimoto, M. Nakamura, N. Mukumoto, H. Tanabe, M. Yamada, Y. Matsuo, H. Monzen, T. Mizowaki, M. Kokubo, and M. Hiraoka, “Predictive uncertainty in infrared marker-based dynamic tumor tracking with Vero4DRT,” Med. Phys. 40, 091705 (8pp.) (2013).
Article metrics loading...
To develop and evaluate a new video image-based QA system, including in-house software, that can display a tracking state visually and quantify the positional accuracy of dynamic tumor tracking irradiation in the Vero4DRT system.
Sixteen trajectories in six patients with pulmonary cancer were obtained with the ExacTrac in the Vero4DRT system. Motion data in the cranio–caudal direction (Y direction) were used as the input for a programmable motion table (Quasar). A target phantom was placed on the motion table, which was placed on the 2D ionization chamber array (MatriXX). Then, the 4D modeling procedure was performed on the target phantom during a reproduction of the patient’s tumor
motion. A substitute target with the patient’s tumor
motion was irradiated with 6-MV x-rays under the surrogate infrared system. The 2D dose images obtained from the MatriXX (33 frames/s; 40 s) were exported to in-house video-image analyzing
software. The absolute differences in the Y direction between the center of the exposed target and the center of the exposed field were calculated. Positional errors were observed. The authors’ QA results were compared to 4D modeling function errors and gimbal motion errors obtained from log analyses in the ExacTrac to verify the accuracy of their QA system. The patients’ tumor
motions were evaluated in the wave forms, and the peak-to-peak distances were also measured to verify their reproducibility.
Thirteen of sixteen trajectories (81.3%) were successfully reproduced with Quasar. The peak-to-peak distances ranged from 2.7 to 29.0 mm. Three trajectories (18.7%) were not successfully reproduced due to the limited motions of the Quasar. Thus, 13 of 16 trajectories were summarized. The mean number of video images used for analysis was 1156. The positional errors (absolute mean difference + 2 standard deviation) ranged from 0.54 to 1.55 mm. The error values differed by less than 1 mm from 4D modeling function errors and gimbal motion errors in the ExacTrac log analyses (n = 13).
The newly developed video image-based QA system, including in-house software, can analyze more than a thousand images (33 frames/s). Positional errors are approximately equivalent to those in ExacTrac log analyses. This system is useful for the visual illustration of the progress of the tracking state and for the quantification of positional accuracy during dynamic tumor tracking irradiation in the Vero4DRT system.
Full text loading...
Most read this month