Beam's‐eye‐view imaging during non‐coplanar lung SBRT. Issue 12 (6th November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yip, Stephen S. F.; Rottmann, Joerg; Berbeco, Ross I.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 42:Issue 12(2015)
• Page Start: 6776
• Page End: 6783
• Publication Date: 2015-11-06
• Subjects: diagnostic radiography -- image sequences -- lung -- medical image processing -- radiation therapy -- tumours; Radiography -- Therapeutic applications; Radiation therapy -- Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers -- Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications -- Image data processing or generation, in general; stereotactic body radiation therapy -- non‐coplanar radiotherapy -- markerless tracking -- beam's‐eye‐view imaging -- EPID imaging; Cancer -- Visibility -- Image guided radiation therapy -- Lungs -- Medical image quality -- Sequence analysis -- Radiation treatment; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4934824
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Beam's‐eye‐view (BEV) imaging with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) can be performed during lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to monitor the tumor location in real‐time. Image quality for each patient and treatment field depends on several factors including the patient anatomy and the gantry and couch angles. The authors investigated the angular dependence of automatic tumor localization during non‐coplanar lung SBRT delivery. Methods: All images were acquired at a frame rate of 12 Hz with an amorphous silicon EPID. A previously validated markerless lung tumor localization algorithm was employed with manual localization as the reference. From ten SBRT patients, 12 987 image frames of 123 image sequences acquired at 48 different gantry–couch rotations were analyzed. δ was defined by the position difference of the automatic and manual localization. Results: Regardless of the couch angle, the best tracking performance was found in image sequences with a gantry angle within 20° of 250° ( δ = 1.40 mm). Image sequences acquired with gantry angles of 150°, 210°, and 350° also led to good tracking performances with δ = 1.77–2.00 mm. Overall, the couch angle was not correlated with the tracking results. Among all the gantry–couch combinations, image sequences acquired at ( θ = 30°, ϕ = 330°), ( θ = 210°, ϕ = 10°), and ( θ = 250°, ϕ = 30°) led to the best tracking results with δ = 1.19–1.82 mm. The worst performing combinations were ( θ = 90° and 230°, ϕ = 10°) and ( θ = 270°, ϕ = 30°) with δ > 3.5 mm. However, 35% (17/48) of the gantry–couch rotations demonstrated substantial variability in tracking performances between patients. For example, the field angle ( θ = 70°, ϕ = 10°) was acquired for five patients. While the tracking errors were ≤1.98 mm for three patients, poor performance was found for the other two patients with δ ≥ 2.18 mm, leading to average tracking error of 2.70 mm. Only one image sequence was acquired for all other gantry–couch rotations ( δ = 1.18–10.29 mm). Conclusions: Non‐coplanar beams with gantry–couch rotation of ( θ = 30°, ϕ = 330°), ( θ = 210°, ϕ = 10°), and ( θ = 250°, ϕ = 30°) have the highest accuracy for BEV lung tumor localization. Additionally, gantry angles of 150°, 210°, 250°, and 350° also offer good tracking performance. The beam geometries ( θ = 90° and 230°, ϕ = 10°) and ( θ = 270°, ϕ = 30°) are associated with substantial automatic localization errors. Overall, lung tumor visibility and tracking performance were patient dependent for a substantial number of the gantry–couch angle combinations studied.