Couch and multileaf collimator tracking: A clinical feasibility study for pancreas and liver treatment. Issue 10 (11th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Lei; LoSasso, Thomas; Zhang, Pengpeng; Hunt, Margie; Mageras, Gig; Tang, Grace
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 47:Issue 10(2020)
• Page Start: 4743
• Page End: 4757
• Publication Date: 2020-09-11
• Subjects: abdominal cancers -- couch tracking -- MLC tracking -- motion management -- real‐time tumor tracking; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14438
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Real‐time tumor tracking through active correction by the multileaf collimator or treatment couch offers a promising strategy to mitigate delivery uncertainty due to intrafractional tumor motion. This study evaluated the performance of MLC and couch tracking using the prototype iTools Tracking system in TrueBeam Developer Mode and the application for abdominal cancer treatments. Methods: Experiments were carried out using a phantom with embedded Calypso transponders and a motion simulation platform. Geometric evaluations were performed using a circular conformal field with sinusoidal traces and pancreatic tumor motion traces. Geometric tracking accuracy was retrospectively calculated by comparing the compensational MLC or couch motion extracted from machine log files to the target motion reconstructed from real‐time MV and kV images. Dosimetric tracking accuracy was measured with radiochromic films using clinical abdominal VMAT plans and pancreatic tumor traces. Results: Geometrically, the root‐mean‐square errors for MLC tracking were 0.5 and 1.8 mm parallel and perpendicular to leaf travel direction, respectively. Couch tracking, in contrast, showed an average of 0.8 mm or less geometric error in all directions. Dosimetrically, both MLC and couch tracking reduced motion‐induced local dose errors compared to no tracking. Evaluated with five pancreatic tumor motion traces, the average 2%/2 mm global gamma pass rate of eight clinical abdominal VMAT plans was 67.4% (range: 26.4%–92.7%) without tracking, which was improved to 86.0% (range: 67.9%–95.6%) with MLC tracking, and 98.1% (range: 94.9%–100.0%) with couch tracking. In 16 out of 40 deliveries with different plans and motion traces, MLC tracking did not achieve clinically acceptable dosimetric accuracy with 3%/3mm gamma pass rate below 95%. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the capability of MLC and couch tracking to reduce motion‐induced dose errors in abdominal cases using a prototype tracking system. Clinically significant dose errors were observed with MLC tracking for certain plans which could be attributed to the inferior MLC tracking accuracy in the direction perpendicular to leaf travel, as well as the interplay between motion tracking and plan delivery for highly modulated plans. Couch tracking outperformed MLC tracking with consistently high dosimetric accuracy in all plans evaluated, indicating its clinical potential in the treatment of abdominal cancers.