Quantifying false positional corrections due to facial motion using SGRT with open‐face Masks. Issue 4 (19th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bry, Victoria; Licon, Anna Laura; McCulloch, James; Kirby, Neil; Myers, Pamela; Saenz, Daniel; Stathakis, Sotirios; Papanikolaou, Niko; Rasmussen, Karl
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 22:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 172
• Page End: 183
• Publication Date: 2021-03-19
• Subjects: immobilization -- radiation therapy -- SGRT -- SRS -- surface guided imaging; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13170
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Studies have evaluated the viability of using open‐face masks as an immobilization technique to treat intracranial and head and neck cancers. This method offers less stress to the patient with comparable accuracy to closed‐face masks. Open‐face masks permit implementation of surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) to assist in positioning and motion management. Research suggests that changes in patient facial expressions may influence the SGRT system to generate false positional corrections. This study aims to quantify these errors produced by the SGRT system due to face motion. Methods: Ten human subjects were immobilized using open‐face masks. Four discrete SGRT regions of interest (ROIs) were analyzed based on anatomical features to simulate different mask openings. The largest ROI was lateral to the cheeks, superior to the eyebrows, and inferior to the mouth. The smallest ROI included only the eyes and bridge of the nose. Subjects were asked to open and close their eyes and simulate fear and annoyance and peak isocenter shifts were recorded. This was performed in both standard and SRS specific resolutions with the C‐RAD Catalyst HD system. Results: All four ROIs analyzed in SRS and Standard resolutions demonstrated an average deviation of 0.3 ± 0.3 mm for eyes closed and 0.4 ± 0.4 mm shift for eyes open, and 0.3 ± 0.3 mm for eyes closed and 0.8 ± 0.9 mm shift for eyes open. The average deviation observed due to changing facial expressions was 1.4 ± 0.9 mm for SRS specific and 1.6 ± 1.6 mm for standard resolution. Conclusion: The SGRT system can generate false positional corrections for face motion and this is amplified at lower resolutions and smaller ROIs. These errors should be considered in the overall tolerances and treatment plan when using open‐face masks with SGRT and may warrant additional radiographic imaging.