Impact of different CBCT imaging monitor units, reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses on the positioning accuracy of a MV‐CBCT system in head‐and‐neck patients

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of different CBCT imaging monitor units (MUs), reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses on the positioning accuracy of a megavoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (MV‐CBCT) system in image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) in head‐and‐neck patients. The MV‐CBCT system was a Siemens MVision, a commercial system integrated into the Siemens ONCOR linear accelerator. The positioning accuracy of the MV‐CBCT system was determined using an anthropomorphic phantom while varying the MV‐CBCT imaging MU, reconstruction slice thickness, and planning CT slice thickness. A total of 240 CBCT images from six head‐and‐neck patients who underwent intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment were acquired and reconstructed using different MV‐CBCT scanning protocols. The interfractional setup errors of the patients were retrospectively analyzed for different imaging MUs, reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses. Using the anthropomorphic phantom, the largest measured mean deviation component and standard deviation of the MVision in 3D directions were 1.3 and 1.0 mm, respectively, for different CBCT imaging MUs, reconstruction slice thicknesses, and planning CT slice thicknesses. The largest setup group system error (M), system error (∑), and random error (σ) from six head‐and‐neck patients were 0.6, 1.2, and 1.7 mm, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positioning accuracy of the MV‐CBCT system between the 5 and 8 MUs, and between the 1 and 3 mm reconstruction slice thicknesses. A thin planning CT slice thickness may achieve higher positioning precision using the phantom measurement, but no significant difference was found in clinical setup precision between the 1 and 3 mm planning CT slice thicknesses. PACS number: 87.55 ne

[1]  J. Pouliot,et al.  Megavoltage cone-beam CT: system description and clinical applications. , 2006, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[2]  Mark Oldham,et al.  Cone-beam-CT guided radiation therapy: A model for on-line application. , 2005, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  Moyed Miften,et al.  Patient dose and image quality from mega-voltage cone beam computed tomography imaging. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  M. Oldham,et al.  Cone-beam-CT guided radiation therapy: technical implementation. , 2005, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[6]  Jeffrey V Siebers,et al.  Effect of patient setup errors on simultaneously integrated boost head and neck IMRT treatment plans. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  S Webb,et al.  A cone-beam megavoltage CT scanner for treatment verification in conformal radiotherapy. , 1998, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  J. Hoisak,et al.  A study of tumor motion management in the conformal radiotherapy of lung cancer. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  Ping Xia,et al.  Patient dose considerations for routine megavoltage cone-beam CT imaging. , 2007, Medical physics.

[10]  Analysis of daily setup variation with tomotherapy megavoltage computed tomography. , 2010, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[11]  T. Rosewall,et al.  Comparison of localization performance with implanted fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  Marcel van Herk,et al.  Errors and margins in radiotherapy. , 2004, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[13]  S. Sim,et al.  Dose comparison of megavoltage cone‐beam and orthogonal‐pair portal images , 2007, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[14]  J. Wong,et al.  Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Ping Xia,et al.  Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT for radiation therapy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  J. Buatti,et al.  Analysis of interfraction prostate motion using megavoltage cone beam computed tomography. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  M Bamberg,et al.  Accuracy of field alignment in radiotherapy of head and neck cancer utilizing individualized face mask immobilization: a retrospective analysis of clinical practice. , 1995, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[18]  Ping Xia,et al.  Repeat CT imaging and replanning during the course of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Moyed Miften,et al.  Commissioning and clinical implementation of a mega-voltage cone beam CT system for treatment localization. , 2007, Medical physics.

[20]  Icru.,et al.  Phantoms and Computational Models in Therapy, Diagnosis and Protection , 1992 .

[21]  V. Khoo,et al.  X-ray volumetric imaging in image-guided radiotherapy: the new standard in on-treatment imaging. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  C. Ling,et al.  Using an onboard kilovoltage imager to measure setup deviation in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for head‐and‐neck patients , 2007, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[23]  Prakash Chinnaiyan,et al.  The impact of daily setup variations on head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  Jean Pouliot,et al.  Physical performance and image optimization of megavoltage cone-beam CT. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  An evaluation of setup uncertainties for patients treated to pelvic sites. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.