Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:05:44.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inherent uncertainty involved in six-dimensional shift determination in ExacTrac imaging system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2017

Upendra Kumar Giri  and
Anirudh Pradhan
Upendra Kumar Giri*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Institute of Applied Sciences & Humanities, GLA University, Mathura-281406, Uttar Pradesh, India Department of Radiation Oncology, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India
Anirudh Pradhan
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Institute of Applied Sciences & Humanities, GLA University, Mathura-281406, Uttar Pradesh, India
*
Correspondence to: Upendra Kumar Giri, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002, India. Tel: +91 965 077 8852. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study was conducted for the assessment of in-built systematic and random errors in the ExacTrac imaging system due to the software of Brainlab, on that basis; recommending a new quality control programme for ExacTrac imaging system.

Methods

A program was developed to compare the image dataset of real time anthropomorphic pelvic phantom using ExacTrac with the reference image dataset from computed tomography. Images were acquired 20 times in a day, on single sitting for 20 conjugative days. On the basic of these translational and rotational shifts, systematic and random errors were calculated that had arisen due to multiple time image acquisition and image registration between acquired and reference image dataset of the phantom.

Results

Random errors were found as 0·006 cm in right-left (Rt-Lt) direction, 0·008 cm in superior-inferior (Sup-Inf) direction and 0·012 cm in anterior-posterior (Ant-Post) direction. On this basic, margins were calculated using Van Herk formula; it was found that there were 0·02 cm inherent shift in Rt-Lt direction, 0·03 cm in Sup-Inf direction and 0·03 cm in Ant-Post direction.

Conclusion

This study concluded that there was inherent error in ExacTrac system which can be quantified and used as a quality assurance tool for the ExacTrac system.

Keywords

ExacTracuncertaintyquality assurance
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 409 - 414
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

1. Jin, J Y, Yin, F F, Tenn, S E, Medin, P M, Solberg, T D. Use of the BrainLAB ExacTrac X-Ray 6D system in image-guided radiotherapy. Med Dosim 2008; 33 (2): 124–134.Google Scholar
2. Soete, G, Verellen, D, Michielsen, D et al. Clinical use of stereoscopic X-ray positioning of patients treated with conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 54 (3): 948–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Wagner, TH, Meeks, SL, Bova, FJ et al. Optical tracking technology in stereotactic radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2007; 32 (2): 111–120.Google Scholar
4. Wang, LT, Solberg, TD, Medin, PM, Boone, R. Infrared patient positioning for stereotactic radiosurgery of extracranialtumors. Comput Biol Med 2001; 31 (2): 101–111.Google Scholar
5. Van Herk, M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14 (1): 52–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Takakura, T, Mizowaki, T, Nakata, M et al. The geometric accuracy of frameless stereotactic radiosurgery using a 6D robotic couch system. Phys Med Biol 2009; 55 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Gevaert, T, Verellen, D, Tournel, K et al. Setup accuracy of the Novalis ExacTrac 6DOF system for frameless radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (5): 1627–1635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Ramakrishna, N, Rosca, F, Friesen, S, Tezcanli, E, Zygmanszki, P, Hacker, F. A clinical comparison of patient setup and intra-fraction motion using frame-based radiosurgery versus a frameless image-guided radiosurgery system for intracranial lesions. Radiother Oncol 2010; 95 (1): 109–115.Google Scholar
9. Ryu, S, Fang Yin, F, Rock, J et al. Image‐guided and intensity‐modulated radiosurgery for patients with spinal metastasis. Cancer 2003; 97 (8): 2013–2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Shi, C, Tazi, A, Fang, DX, Iannuzzi, C. Study of ExacTrac X-ray 6D IGRT setup uncertainty for marker-based prostate IMRT treatment. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13 (3): 35–42.Google Scholar
11. Kim, S, Akpati, HC, Kielbasa, JE et al. Evaluation of intrafraction patient movement for CNS and head & neck IMRT. Med Phys. 2004; 31 (3): 500–506.Google Scholar
12. Hayashi, N, Obata, Y, Uchiyama, Y, Mori, Y, Hashizume, C, Kobayashi, T. Assessment of spatial uncertainties in the radiotherapy process with the Novalis system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75 (2): 549–557.Google Scholar
13. Ackerly, T, Lancaster, CM, Geso, M, Roxby, KJ. Clinical accuracy of ExacTrac intracranial frameless stereotactic system. Med Phys 2011; 38 (9): 5040–5048.Google Scholar
14. Ma, J, Chang, Z, Wang, Z, Wu, QJ, Kirkpatrick, JP, Yin, FF. ExacTrac X-ray 6 degree-of-freedom image-guidance for intracranial non-invasive stereotactic radiotherapy: comparison with kilo-voltage cone-beam CT. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93 (3): 602–608.Google Scholar
15. Jin, JY, Ryu, S, Faber, K et al. 2D/3D image fusion for accurate target localization and evaluation of a mask based stereotactic system in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of cranial lesions. Med Phys. 2006; 33 (12): 4557–4566.Google Scholar