Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T16:32:12.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative analysis of setup margin calculation in cone beam CT, by van Herk formula, using two different image registration methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2023

Soumya Roy Open the ORCID record for Soumya Roy [Opens in a new window] ,
Biplab Sarkar Open the ORCID record for Biplab Sarkar [Opens in a new window]  and
Anirudh Pradhan Open the ORCID record for Anirudh Pradhan [Opens in a new window]
Soumya Roy*
Affiliation:
Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi, India GLA University, Mathura, UP, India
Biplab Sarkar
Affiliation:
GLA University, Mathura, UP, India Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Kolkata, India
Anirudh Pradhan
Affiliation:
GLA University, Mathura, UP, India
*
Author for correspondence: Soumya Roy, Department of Radiation Oncology, GLA University, Mathura, UP, India. E-mail: soumyaroy91@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

This study aimed to quantify the difference in setup margin in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) setup imaging, utilising the van Herk formula for two different image registration methods. Two alternative techniques of registration, bony landmark (BL) matching and soft tissue matching (ST) for head and neck cancer patients, were investigated.

Methods:

This study included 30 head and neck cancer patients who received a simultaneous integrated boost of 54–60–66 Gy in 30 fractions, using volumetric modulated arc treatment. A total of 867 CBCT images were acquired during patient setup and further analysed for setup margin calculation. A region of interest was described using a clip box between the reference and CBCT image to calculate the patient’s positional inaccuracy in three translational directions, X, Y and Z, where X was mediolateral, Y was the cranial-caudal, and Z was the anterior-posterior direction in the patient-based coordinate system, respectively. The shifts were captured by altering the BL and ST matching, and the setup margin was calculated using the van Herk formula (=2·5Σ + 0·7σ where Σ was the systematic and σ was the random error).

Results:

The difference between bony and ST matching in most cases was observed to be 1·4 mm in all translational directions at a 95% confidence interval and <1° in all rotational directions. The rotational error was found to be below the action level (±3°); hence, no corrections related to rotational error were made. The translational setup margin for bone and ST-based registration was X (BL) = 4·6 mm, X (ST) = 4·4 mm, Y (BL) = 6·3 mm, Y (ST) = 4·7 mm, Z (BL) = 3·0 mm, Z (ST) = 3·6mm.

Conclusion:

Two distinct registration approaches for head-neck patient setup did not yield any significant difference in the setup margin calculation. A suitable approach for CBCT and reference CT registration technique was required for the setup margin calculation. Confusion in selecting the correct image registration procedure can result in incorrect treatment execution. The compatibility of the two registration approaches was established in this study. Image fusion was neutralised before the second match (ST) to avoid hysteresis. For setup verification using CBCT for the head and neck region, both bone and ST registration were compatible for setup verification.

Keywords

clip boxcone beam computed tomographyhead-neck cancermaskradiotherapyrandom errorsystematic errorvolumetric modulated arc therapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e92
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Munshi, A, Sarkar, B, Roy, S, Ganesh, T, Mohanti, BK. Dose fall-off patterns with volumetric modulated arc therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy including the “organ at risk” effect. Experience of linear accelerator-based frameless radiosurgery from a single institution. Cancer Radiother 2019; 23 (2): 138–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, B, Manikandan, A, Nandy, M, Munshi, A, Sayan, P, Sujatha, N. Influence of Monte Carlo variance with fluence smoothing in VMAT treatment planning with Monaco TPS. Indian J Cancer 2016; 53 (1): 158–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broggi, S, Perna, L, Bonsignore, F, et al. Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: a planning comparison. Phys Med 2014; 30 (8): 973–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teoh, M, Clark, CH, Wood, K, Whitaker, S, Nisbet, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 2011; 84 (1007): 967–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, M Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14 (1): 52–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, X, Liu, M, Zhai, F, et al. Comparative evaluation of image registration methods with different interest regions in lung cancer radiotherapy. BMC Med Imaging 2019; 19 (1): 100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsworthy, S, Leslie-Dakers, M, Higgins, S, et al. A pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of dual-registration image-guided radiotherapy in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2017; 48 (4): 377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohandass, P, Khanna, D, Kumar, TM, et al. Study to compare the effect of different registration methods on patient setup uncertainties in cone-beam computed tomography during volumetric modulated arc therapy for breast cancer patients. J Med Phys 2018; 43 (4): 207–213.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A, Owen, R, Brown, E, Pryor, D, Bernard, A, Lehman, M. Evaluating the accuracy of the XVI dual registration tool compared with manual soft tissue matching to localise tumour volumes for post-prostatectomy patients receiving radiotherapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015; 59 (4): 527–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, SK, Reddy, K, Campbell, N, Chen, C, Pearson, D. Determination of optimal PTV margin for patients receiving CBCT-guided prostate IMRT: comparative analysis based on CBCT dose calculation with four different margins. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (6): 252–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dionisi, F, Palazzi, MF, Bracco, F, et al. Set-up errors and planning target volume margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: a clinical study of image guidance with on-line cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Clin Oncol 2013; 18 (3): 418–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, B, Ganesh, T, Munshi, A, et al. Rotational positional error-corrected linear set-up margin calculation technique for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy in a dual imaging environment of 4-D cone beam CT and ExacTrac stereoscopic imaging. Radiol Med 2021; 126 (7): 979–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, D, Borgert, J, Rasche, V, Grass, M. Motion-compensated and gated cone beam filtered back-projection for 3-D rotational X-ray angiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006; 25 (7): 898–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
XVI R4.5.0 Instructions for Use: Elekta Synergy®, Elekta Axesse™, Elekta Infinity™, Versa HD™. Crawley, United Kingdom: Elekta Limited; 2013.Google Scholar
Meyer, J, Wilbert, J, Baier, K, et al. Positioning accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in combination with a HexaPOD robot treatment table. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67 (4): 1220–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Q, Wei, H, Yang, C. Local part chamfer matching for shape-based object detection. Pattern Recognit 2017; 65: 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czajkowski, P, Piotrowski, T. Registration methods in radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2019; 24 (1): 28–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palombarini, M, Mengoli, S, Fantazzini, P, Cadioli, C, Degli Esposti, C, Frezza, GP. Analysis of inter-fraction setup errors and organ motion by daily kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7: 56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, MA, Aitken, A, Hansen, VN, McNair, HA, Tait, DM. Set-up errors in radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers--is electronic portal imaging or cone beam more accurate? Radiother Oncol 2011; 98 (2): 249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guckenberger, M, Roesch, J, Baier, K, Sweeney, RA, Flentje, M. Dosimetric consequences of translational and rotational errors in frame-less image-guided radiosurgery. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7: 63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed