Evaluation of set-up errors and estimation of set-up margin during external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)

Aim: In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. Results: The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively. Findings: The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.

Optimisation of a composite difference metric for prompt error detection in real-time portal dosimetry of simulated volumetric modulated arc therapy

Objectives: In real-time portal dosimetry, thresholds are set for several measures of difference between predicted and measured images, and signals larger than those thresholds signify an error. The aim of this work is to investigate the use of an additional composite difference metric (CDM) for earlier detection of errors. Methods: Portal images were predicted for the volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of six prostate patients. Errors in monitor units, aperture opening, aperture position and path length were deliberately introduced into all 180 segments of the treatment plans, and these plans were delivered to a water-equivalent phantom. Four different metrics, consisting of central axis signal, mean image value and two image difference measures, were used to identify errors, and a CDM was added, consisting of a weighted power sum of the individual metrics. To optimise the weights of the CDM and to evaluate the resulting timeliness of error detection, a leave-pair-out strategy was used. For each combination of four patients, the weights of the CDM were determined by an exhaustive search, and the result was evaluated on the remaining two patients. Results: The median segment index at which the errors were identified was 87 (range 40–130) when using all of the individual metrics separately. Using a CDM as well as multiple separate metrics reduced this to 73 (35–95). The median weighting factors of the four metrics constituting the composite were (0.15, 0.10, 0.15, 0.00). Due to selection of suitable threshold levels, there was only one false positive result in the six patients. Conclusion: This study shows that, in conjunction with appropriate error thresholds, use of a CDM is able to identify increased image differences around 20% earlier than the separate measures. Advances in knowledge: This study shows the value of combining difference metrics to allow earlier detection of errors during real-time portal dosimetry for volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment.

Fiducial markers visibility and artefacts in prostate cancer radiotherapy multi-modality imaging

Background In this study, a novel pelvic phantom was developed and used to assess the visibility and presence of artefacts from different types of commercial fiducial markers (FMs) on multi-modality imaging relevant to prostate cancer. Methods and materials The phantom was designed with 3D printed hollow cubes in the centre. These cubes were filled with gel to mimic the prostate gland and two parallel PVC rods were used to mimic bones in the pelvic region. Each cube was filled with gelatine and three unique FMs were positioned with a clinically-relevant spatial distribution. The FMs investigated were; Gold Marker (GM) CIVCO, GM RiverPoint, GM Gold Anchor (GA) line and ball shape, and polymer marker (PM) from CIVCO. The phantom was scanned using several imaging modalities typically used to image prostate cancer patients; MRI, CT, CBCT, planar kV-pair, ExacTrac, 6MV, 2.5MV and integrated EPID imaging. The visibility of the markers and any observed artefacts in the phantom were compared to in-vivo scans of prostate cancer patients with FMs. Results All GMs were visible in volumetric scans, however, they also had the most visible artefacts on CT and CBCT scans, with the magnitude of artefacts increasing with FM size. PM FMs had the least visible artefacts in volumetric scans but they were not visible on portal images and had poor visibility on lateral kV images. The smallest diameter GMs (GA) were the most difficult GMs to identify on lateral kV images. Conclusion The choice between different FMs is also dependent on the adopted IGRT strategy. PM was found to be superior to investigated gold markers in the most commonly used modalities in the management of prostate cancer; CT, CBCT and MRI imaging.