Impact of Cold Weather on Setup Errors in Radiotherapy

Objective. To investigate the influence of cold weather on setup errors of patients with chest and pelvic disease in radiotherapy. Methods. The image-guided data of the patients were collected from the Radiotherapy Center of Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Guangxi Medical University from October 2020 to February 2021. During this period, the cold weather days were December 15, 16, and 17, 2020, and January 7 and 8, 2021. For body fixation in radiotherapy, an integrated plate and a thermoplastic mold were employed in 18 patients with chest disease, while an integrated plate and a vacuum pad were applied in 19 patients with pelvic disease. All patients underwent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in the first five treatments and once a week thereafter. The obtained data were registered to the planning CT image to get the setup errors of the patient in the translational direction including X, Y, and Z axes and rotational direction including RX, RY, and RZ. Then, the Mann–Whitney U test was performed. The expansion boundary values of the chest and pelvis were calculated according to the formula M PTV = 2.5 ∑ + 0.7 δ . Results. A total of 286 eligible results of CBCT scans were collected. There were 138 chest CBCT scans, including 26 taken in cold weather and 112 in usual weather, and 148 pelvic CBCT scans, including 33 taken in cold weather and 115 in usual weather. The X-, Y-, and Z-axis translational setup errors of patients with chest disease in the cold weather group were 0.16 (0.06, 0.32) cm, 0.25 (0.17, 0.52) cm, and 0.35 (0.21, 0.47) cm, respectively, and those in the usual weather group were 0.14 (0.08, 0.29) cm, 0.23 (0.13, 0.37) cm, and 0.18 (0.1, 0.35) cm, respectively. The results indicated that there was a statistical difference in the Z-axis translational error between the cold weather group and the usual weather group (U = 935.5; p = 0.005 < 0.05 ), while there was no statistical difference in the rotational error between the two groups. The external boundary values of X, Y, and Z axes in the cold weather group were 0.57 cm, 0.92 cm, and 0.99 cm, respectively, and those in the usual weather group were 0.57 cm, 0.78 cm, and 0.68 cm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the translational and rotational errors of patients with pelvic disease between the cold weather group and the usual weather group ( p < 0.05 ). The external boundary values of X, Y, and Z axes were 0.63 cm, 0.79 cm, and 0.68 cm in the cold weather group and 0.61 cm, 0.79 cm, and 0.61 cm in the usual weather group, respectively. Conclusion. The setup error of patients undergoing radiotherapy with their bodies fixed by an integrated plate and a thermoplastic mold was greater in cold weather than in usual weather, especially in the ventrodorsal direction.

Influence of Clinical and Tumor Factors on Interfraction Setup Errors With Rotation Correction for Vacuum Cushion in Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

PurposeTo explore the influence of clinical and tumor factors over interfraction setup errors with rotation correction for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) patients immobilized in vacuum cushion (VC) to better understand whether patient re-setup could further be optimized with these parameters.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on 142 NSCLC patients treated with SBRT between November 2017 to July 2019 in the local institute. Translation and rotation setup errors were analyzed in 732 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before treatment. Differences between groups were analyzed using independent sample t-test. Logistic regression test was used to analyze possible correlations between patient re-setup and clinical and tumor factors.ResultsMean setup errors were the largest in anterior–posterior (AP) direction (3.2 ± 2.4 mm) compared with superior–inferior (SI) (2.8 ± 2.1 mm) and left–right (LR) (2.5 ± 2.0 mm) directions. The mean values were similar in pitch, roll, and rtn directions. Of the fractions, 83.7%, 90.3%, and 86.6% satisfied setup error tolerance limits in AP, SI, and LR directions, whereas 95% had rotation setup errors of &lt;2° in the pitch, roll, or rtn directions. Setup errors were significantly different in the LR direction when age, body mass index (BMI), and “right vs. left” location parameters were divided into groups. Both univariate and multivariable model analyses showed that age (p = 0.006) and BMI (p = 0.002) were associated with patient re-setup.ConclusionsAge and BMI, as clinical factors, significantly influenced patient re-setup in the current study, whereas all other clinical and tumor factors were not correlated with patient re-setup. The current study recommends that more attention be paid to setup for elderly patients and patients with larger BMI when immobilized using VC, especially in the left–right direction.

A retrospective comparison of two different immobilization systems for radiotherapy of extremity soft tissue sarcomas and its influence on CTV-PTV margin

Background On account of extremity wide range of movements and difficulty of reproducibility during irradiation of extremity sarcomas, assorted immobilization strategies are employed to eliminate setup errors. The study purpose was to compare the setup errors of the commonly used immobilization tools and to define planning target volume (PTV) margins for each device. Methods A retrospective review comparing Vac-Loc™ and thermoplastic cast (Tcast) was conducted. On radiotherapy treatment, portal imaging was matched with the pre-treatment simulation imaging for both fixation tools. The isocenter shifts and total vector error (TVE) were compared. Random (σ) and systemic errors (Σ) were computed and PTV margins were defined. Results Three hundred seven shifts in each direction measured in 14 patients. Mean displacements for the Vac-Loc™ and Tcast, respectively, were as follow: vertical; -0.01 cm vs. 0.02 cm, longitudinal; 0.03 cm vs. 0.04; lateral; 0.04 cm vs. 0.00 cm and TVE; 0.15 cm vs. 0.17 cm with no significant statistical difference. Random and systemic errors were comparable for both devices. The lateral displacement and rotational random errors were higher Vac-Loc™ compared to Tcast. Overall measured PTV margins were marginally lower for Tcast compared to Vac-Loc™. Conclusion Vac-Loc™ and Tcast are valid options for immobilization with no clear superiority of either device. The marginal advantage of Tcast warrants further prospective studies.

Evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction 6D motion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal metastases: influence of treatment time

Background The objective of this study was to analyze the amplitude of translational and rotational movements occurring during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of spinal metastases in two different positioning devices. The relevance of intra-fractional imaging and the influence of treatment time were evaluated. Methods Twenty patients were treated in the supine position either (1) on a body vacuum cushion with arms raised and resting on a clegecel or (2) on an integrated SBRT solution consisting of a SBRT table top, an Orfit™ AIO system, and a vacuum cushion. Alignments between the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the planning computed tomography allowed corrections of inter- and intra-fraction positional shifts using a 6D table. The absolute values of the translational and rotational setup errors obtained for 329 CBCT were recorded. The translational 3D vector, the maximum angle, and the characteristic times of the treatment fractions were calculated. Results An improvement in the mean (SD) inter-fraction 3D vector (mm) from 7.8 (5.9) to 5.9 (3.8) was obtained by changing the fixation devices from (1) to (2) (p < 0.038). The maximum angles were less than 2° for a total of 87% for (1) and 96% for (2). The mean (SD) of the intra-fraction 3D vectors (mm) was lower for the new 1.1 (0.8) positioning fixation (2) compared to the old one (1) 1.7 (1.7) (p = 0.004). The angular corrections applied in the intra-fraction were on average very low (0.4°) and similar between the two systems. A strong correlation was found between the 3D displacement vector and the fraction time for (1) and (2) with regression coefficients of 0.408 (0.262–0.555, 95% CI) and 0.069 (0.010–0.128, 95% CI), respectively. An accuracy of 1 mm would require intra-fraction imaging every 5 min for both systems. If the expected accuracy was 2 mm, then only system (2) could avoid intra-fractional imaging. Conclusions This study allowed us to evaluate setup errors of two immobilization devices for spine SBRT. The association of inter- and intra-fraction imaging with 6D repositioning of a patient is inevitable. The correlation between treatment time and corrections to be applied encourages us to move toward imaging modalities which allow a reduction in fraction time.

Does the protocol-required uniform margin around the CTV adequately account for setup inaccuracies in whole breast irradiation?

Purpose To use cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging to determine the impacts of patient characteristics on the magnitude of geometric setup errors and obtain patient-specific planning target volume (PTV) margins from the correlated patient characteristics in whole breast irradiation (WBI). Methods Between January 2019 and December 2019, a total of 97 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery, followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy in WBI, were scanned with pre-treatment CBCT for the first three treatment fractions and weekly for the subsequent fractions. Setup errors in the left–right (LR), superior–inferior (SI) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions were recorded and analyzed with patient characteristics—including age, tumor location, body mass index (BMI), chest circumference (CC) and breast volume (BV)—to examine the predictors for setup errors and obtain specific PTV margins. Results A total of 679 CBCT images from 97 patients were acquired for analysis. The mean setup errors for the whole group were 2.32 ± 1.21 mm, 3.71 ± 2.21 mm and 2.75 ± 1.56 mm in the LR, SI and AP directions, respectively. Patients’ BMI, CC and BV were moderately associated with setup errors, especially in the SI directions (R = 0.40, 0.43 and 0.22, respectively). Setup errors in the SI directions for patients with BMI > 23.8 kg/m2, CC > 89 cm and BV > 657 cm3 were 4.56 ± 2.59 mm, 4.77 ± 2.42 mm and 4.30 ± 2.43 mm, respectively, which were significantly greater than those of patients with BMI ≤ 23.8 kg/m2, CC ≤ 89 cm and BV ≤ 657 cm3 (P < 0.05). Correspondingly, the calculated PTV margins in patients with BMI > 23.8 kg/m2, CC > 89 cm and BV > 657 cm3 were 4.25/7.95/4.93 mm, 4.37/7.66/5.24 mm and 4.22/7.54/5.29 mm in the LR/SI/AP directions, respectively, compared with 3.64/4.64/5.09 mm, 3.31/4.50/4.82 mm and 3.29/5.74/4.73 mm for BMI ≤ 23.8 kg/m2, CC ≤ 89 cm and BV ≤ 657 cm3, respectively. Conclusions The magnitude of geometric setup errors was moderately correlated with BMI, CC and BV. It was recommended to set patient-specific PTV margins according to patient characteristics in the absence of daily image-guided treatment setup.

Practical aspects of the application of helical tomotherapy for craniospinal irradiation

We investigated the practical aspects of the application of craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy (HT-CSI) by evaluating interfractional setup errors and intrafractional movement during each treatment in 83 patients undergoing HT-CSI between January 2014 and December 2018. Interfractional setup errors in each axis (mediolateral; ML, craniocaudal; CC, and anteroposterior; AP) were assessed as differences between pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images scanned (zygomatic arch to the C4 spine) and planning CT images. Intrafractional movements were evaluated as the difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment MVCT (T12–L4 spine) images at each fraction. Median interfractional setup error was acceptable in every axis (ML: 1.6 mm, CC: 1.9 mm, AP: 3.1 mm). Seven patients (8.4%) experienced significant intrafractional displacement from 1 to 10 fractions (0.34% for ML, 0.74% for CC, 1.21% for AP). Weight loss grade 1+ during treatment (p = 0.016) was an independent risk factor for significant intrafractional displacement. The risk factor for significant intrafractional movement in pediatric patients was weight loss grade 1+ (p = 0.020), while there was no factor in adults. HT-CSI could be a feasible treatment modality with acceptable setup verification. Inter- and intrafractional errors were acceptable; paying attention to weight loss during treatment is necessary, especially in pediatric patients.

A Probability-Based Investigation on the Setup Robustness of Pencil-beam Proton Radiation Therapy for Skull-Base Meningioma

Introduction The intracranial skull-base meningioma is in proximity to multiple critical organs and heterogeneous tissues. Steep dose gradients often result from avoiding critical organs in proton treatment plans. Dose uncertainties arising from setup errors under image-guided radiation therapy are worthy of evaluation. Patients and Methods Fourteen patients with skull-base meningioma were retrospectively identified and planned with proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) single-field uniform dose (SFUD) and multifield optimization (MFO) techniques. The setup uncertainties were assigned a probability model on the basis of prior published data. The impact on the dose distribution from nominal 1-mm and large, less probable setup errors, as well as the cumulative effect, was analyzed. The robustness of SFUD and MFO planning techniques in these scenarios was discussed. Results The target coverage was reduced and the plan dose hot spot increased by all setup uncertainty scenarios regardless of the planning techniques. For 1 mm nominal shifts, the deviations in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage D99% was −11 ± 52 cGy and −45 ± 147 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. The setup uncertainties affected the organ at risk (OAR) dose both positively and negatively. The statistical average of the setup uncertainties had &lt;100 cGy impact on the plan qualities for all patients. The cumulative deviations in CTV D95% were 1 ± 34 cGy and −7 ± 18 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. Conclusion It is important to understand the impact of setup uncertainties on skull-base meningioma, as the tumor target has complex shape and is in proximity to multiple critical organs. Our work evaluated the setup uncertainty based on its probability distribution and evaluated the dosimetric consequences. In general, the SFUD plans demonstrated more robustness than the MFO plans in target coverages and brainstem dose. The probability-weighted overall effect on the dose distribution is small compared to the dosimetric shift during single fraction.

Study of Spinal Cord Substructure Expansion Margin in Esophageal Cancer

Purpose: To analyze the setup errors and residual errors of different spinal cord parts in esophageal cancer patients and to explore the necessity of spinal cord segmental expansion. Methods and Materials: Sixty cases of esophageal cancer were included with 20 patients subdivided into the following groups: neck, chest and abdomen as per the treatment site. The patients underwent intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) between 2017 and 2019. Thermoplastic mask or vacuum bag were utilized for immobilization of different groups. CTVision (Siemens CT-On-Rail system) was used to acquire pre-treatment CT, and 20 consecutive pre-treatment CT datasets were collected for data analysis for each case. Images were exported to MIM (MIM Software Inc.) for processing and data analysis. Dice coefficient, maximum Hausdorff distance and centroid coordinate values between the spinal cord contours in the pre-treatment CTs and the planning CT were calculated and extracted. The contour expansion margin value is calculated as MPRV = 1.3 ∑ total + 0.5 σ total, where ∑ total and σ total are the systematic and random error, respectively. Results: For neck, chest, abdominal segments of the spinal cord, the mean Dice coefficients (± SD) are 0.73 ± 0.06, 0.80 ± 0.06, 0.82 ± 0.06, the maximum Hausdorff distance residual error (± SD) are 4.46 ± 0.55, 3.49 ± 0.53, 3.46 ± 0.69 mm, and the mean centroid coordinate residual error (± SD) are 2.40 ± 0.53, 1.66 ± 0.47, 2.14 ± 0.95 mm, respectively. The calculated margin using residual centroid method in medial-lateral (ML), anterior-posterior (AP), and cranial-caudal (CC) direction of spinal cord in neck, chest, abdominal segments are 3.86, 5.37, 6.36 mm, 3.45, 3.83, 4.51 mm, 4.05, 4.83, 7.06 mm, respectively, and the calculated margin using residual Hausdorff method are 3.10, 5.33 and 6.15 mm, 3.30, 3.77, 4.61 mm, 3.35, 4.76, 6.87 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The setup errors and residual errors are different in each segment of the spinal cord. Different margins expansion should be applied to different segment of spinal cord.