Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-12T07:28:52.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A study for the dosimetric evaluation of rotational setup error forlung stereotactic body radiation therapy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2018

Sina Mossahebi
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Ulrich Langner
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Karl Prado
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Minsik Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
ByongYong Yi*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
*
Author for correspondence: ByongYong Yi, Departmentof Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,USA. Email: byi@umm.edu

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the necessity of rotational shifts by considering dosimetricimpact of rotational errors on stereotactic body radiation therapy(SBRT).

Materials and methods

20 lung patients with the lesion size <5 cm treated with SBRT havebeen selected for dosimetric analysis. Three-dimensional dose has beenrotationally shifted (±1°, ±3°,±5° for pitch, roll and yaw) and overlaid to the originalcomputed tomography images. The dose–volume histograms of18-rotational plans of each patient were compared to those of the originalplan.

Results

No significant dosimetric differences were observed in target coverage. Forall of the cases up to 5° in any couch angle dose differences ofD99 and D95 were<3%. Variations of conformity index were observed to be lessthan 0·05. None of the organ at risk doses exceeded the dose limit.The V20 differences of the ipsilateral and thetotal lungs were less than 0·4%.

Conclusion

It has been found to be unnecessary to perform rotational shifts up to5° for lung SBRT treatments; the translational shift is sufficientfor the cases used in this study. This method may be applied and testedafter planning and before treatment initiation to rule out exceptionallyextreme cases.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This article was originally published with Minsik Lee listed as the soleauthor. This has now been corrected and the other authors added. Acorrigendum with the full explanation can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S146039691900075X.

Cite this article: Mossahebi S, Langner U, Prado K, Lee M and Yi B. (2018) A study for the dosimetricevaluation of rotational setup error for lung stereotactic bodyradiation therapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice17: 420–424. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000250

References

1. Baumann, P, Nyman, J, Hoyer, M et al. Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 32903296.Google Scholar
2. Timmerman, R, Paulus, R, Galvin, J et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. JAMA 2010; 303: 10701076.Google Scholar
3. Yang, Y, Catalano, S, Kelsey, C R, Yoo, D S, Yin, F F, Cai, J. Dosimetric effects of rotational offsets in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. Med Dosim 2014; 39: 117121.Google Scholar
4. Peng, J L, Liu, C, Chen, Y, Amdur, R J, Vanek, K, Li, J G. Dosimetric consequences of rotational setup errors with direct simulation in a treatment planning system for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12 (3): 6170.Google Scholar
5. Wineya, B, Bussiére, M. Geometric and dosimetric uncertainties in intracranial stereotatctic treatments for multiple nonisocentric lesions. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15 (3): 122132.Google Scholar
6. Kovacs, M, Iseli, M, Lang, S, Malla, M, Winter, C. Six degrees of freedom robotic correction table: integration into routine radiotherapy practice. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103 (S1): S141S142.Google Scholar
7. Huang, C Y, Tehrani, J N, Ng, J A, Booth, J, Keall, P. Six degrees-of-freedom prostate and lung tumor motion measurements using kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91 (2): 368375.Google Scholar
8. Wilbert, J, Guckenberger, M, Polat, B et al. Semi-robotic 6 degree of freedom positioning for intracranial high precision radiotherapy: first phantom and clinical results. Radiat Oncol 2010; 5: 4252.Google Scholar
9. Garibaldi, C, Piperno, G, Ferrari, A et al. Translational and rotational localization errors in cone-beam CT based image-guided lung stereotactic radiotherapy. Phys Med 2016; 32 (7): 859865.Google Scholar
10. Guckenberger, M, Meyer, J, Vordermark, D, Baier, K, Wilbert, J, Flentje, M. Magnitude and clinical relevance of translational and rotational patient setup errors: a cone-beam CT study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65 (3): 934942.Google Scholar
11. Dhabaan, A, Schreibmann, E, Siddiqi, A et al. Six degrees of freedom CBCT-based positioning for intracranial targets treated with frameless stereotactic radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13 (6): 215225.Google Scholar
12. Schmidhalter, D, Fix, M K, Wyss, M et al. Evaluation of a new six degrees of freedom couch for radiation therapy. Med Phys 2013; 40 (11): 111710 (11pp).Google Scholar
13. Belcher, A H, Liu, X, Grelewicz, Z, Pearson, E, Wiersma, R D. Development of a 6DOF robotic motion phantom for radiation therapy. Med Phys 2014; 41: 121704 (7pp.).Google Scholar
14. Timmerman, R D, Kavanagh, B D, Cho, L C, Papiez, L, Xing, L. Stereotactic body radiation therapy in multiple organ sites. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (8): 947952.Google Scholar