Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames

Zhaohui Han, John C. Bondeson, John H. Lewis, Edward G. Mannarino, Scott A. Friesen, Matthew M. Wagar, Tracy A. Balboni, Brian M. Alexander, Nils D. Arvold, David J. Sher, Fred L. Hacker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. Methods and materials: Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. Results: The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean ± SD): - 3.9 ± 5.5 mm (0.2 ± 0.9°), - 1.6 ± 6.0. mm (0.5 ± 1.4°), and 0.0 ± 5.3 mm (0.8 ± 1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6 ± 2.7 mm (0.2 ± 0.6°), 0.9 ± 5.3 mm (- 0.2 ± 0.9°), and - 0.9 ± 3.0 mm (0.3 ± 0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were - 0.1 ± 0.4. mm (0.1 ± 0.5°), - 0.2 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. Conclusions: These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e17-e24
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Spine
Radiotherapy
Benchmarking
Radiosurgery
Robotics
Masks
X-Rays
Skin
Therapeutics
Direction compound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames. / Han, Zhaohui; Bondeson, John C.; Lewis, John H.; Mannarino, Edward G.; Friesen, Scott A.; Wagar, Matthew M.; Balboni, Tracy A.; Alexander, Brian M.; Arvold, Nils D.; Sher, David J.; Hacker, Fred L.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. e17-e24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Han, Z, Bondeson, JC, Lewis, JH, Mannarino, EG, Friesen, SA, Wagar, MM, Balboni, TA, Alexander, BM, Arvold, ND, Sher, DJ & Hacker, FL 2016, 'Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames', Practical Radiation Oncology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. e17-e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2015.08.009
Han, Zhaohui ; Bondeson, John C. ; Lewis, John H. ; Mannarino, Edward G. ; Friesen, Scott A. ; Wagar, Matthew M. ; Balboni, Tracy A. ; Alexander, Brian M. ; Arvold, Nils D. ; Sher, David J. ; Hacker, Fred L. / Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames. In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2016 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. e17-e24.
@article{3f49fcbd52074abba46f0bc9e28c7aa9,
title = "Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames",
abstract = "Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. Methods and materials: Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. Results: The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean ± SD): - 3.9 ± 5.5 mm (0.2 ± 0.9°), - 1.6 ± 6.0. mm (0.5 ± 1.4°), and 0.0 ± 5.3 mm (0.8 ± 1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6 ± 2.7 mm (0.2 ± 0.6°), 0.9 ± 5.3 mm (- 0.2 ± 0.9°), and - 0.9 ± 3.0 mm (0.3 ± 0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were - 0.1 ± 0.4. mm (0.1 ± 0.5°), - 0.2 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. Conclusions: These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.",
author = "Zhaohui Han and Bondeson, {John C.} and Lewis, {John H.} and Mannarino, {Edward G.} and Friesen, {Scott A.} and Wagar, {Matthew M.} and Balboni, {Tracy A.} and Alexander, {Brian M.} and Arvold, {Nils D.} and Sher, {David J.} and Hacker, {Fred L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2015.08.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "e17--e24",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames

AU - Han, Zhaohui

AU - Bondeson, John C.

AU - Lewis, John H.

AU - Mannarino, Edward G.

AU - Friesen, Scott A.

AU - Wagar, Matthew M.

AU - Balboni, Tracy A.

AU - Alexander, Brian M.

AU - Arvold, Nils D.

AU - Sher, David J.

AU - Hacker, Fred L.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. Methods and materials: Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. Results: The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean ± SD): - 3.9 ± 5.5 mm (0.2 ± 0.9°), - 1.6 ± 6.0. mm (0.5 ± 1.4°), and 0.0 ± 5.3 mm (0.8 ± 1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6 ± 2.7 mm (0.2 ± 0.6°), 0.9 ± 5.3 mm (- 0.2 ± 0.9°), and - 0.9 ± 3.0 mm (0.3 ± 0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were - 0.1 ± 0.4. mm (0.1 ± 0.5°), - 0.2 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. Conclusions: These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.

AB - Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. Methods and materials: Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. Results: The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean ± SD): - 3.9 ± 5.5 mm (0.2 ± 0.9°), - 1.6 ± 6.0. mm (0.5 ± 1.4°), and 0.0 ± 5.3 mm (0.8 ± 1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6 ± 2.7 mm (0.2 ± 0.6°), 0.9 ± 5.3 mm (- 0.2 ± 0.9°), and - 0.9 ± 3.0 mm (0.3 ± 0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were - 0.1 ± 0.4. mm (0.1 ± 0.5°), - 0.2 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0 ± 0.4. mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (0.0 ± 0.4°), and 0.0 ± 0.4 mm (0.0 ± 0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. Conclusions: These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952983189&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952983189&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.08.009

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.08.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 26603596

AN - SCOPUS:84952983189

VL - 6

SP - e17-e24

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

IS - 1

ER -