24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Real-time intra-fraction motion management in breast cancer radiotherapy: analysis of 2028 treatment sessions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Intra-fraction motion represents a crucial issue in the era of precise radiotherapy in several settings, including breast irradiation. To date, only few data exist on real-time measured intra-fraction motion in breast cancer patients. Continuous surface imaging using visible light offers the capability to monitor patient movements in three-dimensional space without any additional radiation exposure. The aim of the present study was to quantify the uncertainties of possible intra-fractional motion during breast radiotherapy.

          Material and methods

          One hundred and four consecutive patients that underwent postoperative radiotherapy following breast conserving surgery or mastectomy were prospectively evaluated during 2028 treatment sessions. During each treatment session the patients’ motion was continuously measured using the Catalyst™ optical surface scanner (C-RAD AB, Sweden) and compared to a reference scan acquired at the beginning of each session. The Catalyst system works through an optical surface imaging with light emitting diode (LED) light and reprojection captured by a charge coupled device (CCD) camera, which provide target position control during treatment delivery with a motion detection accuracy of 0.5 mm. For 3D surface reconstruction, the system uses a non-rigid body algorithm to calculate the distance between the surface and the isocentre and using the principle of optical triangulation. Three-dimensional deviations and relative position differences during the whole treatment fraction were calculated by the system and analyzed statistically.

          Results

          Overall, the maximum magnitude of the deviation vector showed a mean change of 1.93 mm ± 1.14 mm (standard deviation [SD]) (95%-confidence interval: [0.48–4.65] mm) and a median change of 1.63 mm during dose application (beam-on time only). Along the lateral and longitudinal axis changes were quite similar (0.18 mm ± 1.06 mm vs. 0.17 mm ± 1.32 mm), on the vertical axis the mean change was 0.68 mm ± 1.53 mm. The mean treatment session time was 154 ± 53 (SD) seconds and the mean beam-on time only was 55 ± 16 s. According to Friedman’s test differences in the distributions of the three possible directions (lateral, longitudinal and vertical) were significant ( p < 0.01), in post-hoc analysis there were no similarities between any two of the three directions.

          Conclusion

          The optical surface imaging system is an accurate and easy tool for real-time motion management in breast cancer radiotherapy. Intra-fraction motion was reported within five millimeters in all directions. Thus, intra-fraction motion in our series of 2028 treatment sessions seems to be of minor clinical relevance in postoperative radiotherapy of breast cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Treatment planning and evaluation of gated radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer patients using the CatalystTM/SentinelTM system for deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH)

          Background There is a potential for adverse cardiovascular effects in long-term breast cancer survivors following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). For this purpose, the deep inspiration breath-hold technique (DIBH) has been introduced into clinical practice, to maximally reduce the radiation dose to the heart. However, there are a variety of DIBH delivery techniques, patient positioning and visual patient feedback mechanisms. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the application of radiotherapy in DIBH using the CatalystTM/SentinelTM system, with a special emphasis on treatment planning and dosimetric plan comparison in free breathing (FB) and DIBH. Patients and methods A total of 13 patients with left-sided breast cancer following breast conserving surgery were included in this prospective clinical trial. For treatment application the CatalystTM/SentinelTM system (C-RAD AB, Uppsala, Sweden) was used and gating control was performed by an audio-visual patient feedback system. CT and surface data were acquired in FB and DIBH and dual treatment plans were created using Pencil Beam and Collapsed Cone Convolution. Dosimetric output parameters of organs at risk were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Central lung distance (CLD) was retrieved from iViewTM portal images during treatment delivery. Results The system contains a laser surface scanner (SentinelTM) and an optical surface scanner (CatalystTM) interconnected to the LINAC systems via a gating interface and allows for a continuous and touchless surface scanning. Overall, 225 treatment fractions with audio-visual guidance were completed without any substantial difficulties. Following initial patient training and treatment setup, radiotherapy in DIBH with the CatalystTM/SentinelTM system was time-efficient and reliable. Following dual treatment planning for all patients, nine of 13 patients were treated in DIBH. In these patients, the reduction of the mean heart dose for DIBH compared to FB was 52 % (2.73 to 1.31 Gy; p = 0.011). The maximum doses to the heart and LAD were reduced by 59 % (47.90 to 19.74 Gy; p = 0.008) and 75 % (38.55 to 9.66 Gy; p = 0.008), respectively. In six of the nine patients the heart completely moved out of the treatment field by DIBH. The standard deviation of the CLD varied between 0.12 and 0.29 cm (mean: 0.16 cm). Conclusion The CatalystTM/SentinelTM system enabled a fast and reliable application and surveillance of DIBH in daily clinical routine. Furthermore, the present data show that using the DIBH technique during RT could significantly reduce high dose areas and mean doses to the heart. Trial registration DRKS: DRKS00010929 registered on 5. August 2016.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying the effect of intrafraction motion during breast IMRT planning and dose delivery.

            Respiratory motion during intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) causes two types of problems. First, the clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin needed to account for respiratory motion means that the lung and heart dose is higher than would occur in the absence of such motion. Second, because respiratory motion is not synchronized with multileaf collimator (MLC) motion, the delivered dose is not the same as the planned dose. The aims of this work were to evaluate these problems to determine (a) the effects of respiratory motion and setup error during breast IMRT treatment planning, (b) the effects of the interplay between respiratory motion and multileaf collimator (MLC) motion during breast IMRT delivery, and (c) the potential benefits of breast IMRT using breath-hold, respiratory gated, and 4D techniques. Seven early stage breast cancer patient data sets were planned for IMRT delivered with a dynamic MLC (DMLC). For each patient case, eight IMRT plans with varying respiratory motion magnitudes and setup errors (and hence CTV to PTV margins) were created. The effects of respiratory motion and setup error on the treatment plan were determined by comparing the eight dose distributions. For each fraction of these plans, the effect of the interplay between respiratory motion and MLC motion during IMRT delivery was simulated by superimposing the respiratory trace on the planned DMLC leaf motion, facilitating comparisons between the planned and expected dose distributions. When considering respiratory motion in the CTV-PTV expansion during breast IMRT planning, our results show that PTV dose heterogeneity increases with respiratory motion. Lung and heart doses also increase with respiratory motion. Due to the interplay between respiratory motion and MLC motion during IMRT delivery, the planned and expected dose distributions differ. This difference increases with respiratory motion. The expected dose varies from fraction to fraction. However, for the seven patients studied and respiratory trace used, for no breathing, shallow breathing, and normal breathing, there were no statistically significant differences between the planned and expected dose distributions. Thus, for breast IMRT, intrafraction motion degrades treatment plans predominantly by the necessary addition of a larger CTV to PTV margin than would be required in the absence of such motion. This motion can be limited by breath-hold, respiratory gated, or 4D techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation of daily patient positioning for radiotherapy with a commercial 3D surface-imaging system (Catalyst™)

              Background To report our initial clinical experience with the novel surface imaging system Catalyst™ (C-RAD AB, Sweden) in connection with an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator for daily patient positioning in patients undergoing radiation therapy. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the patient positioning of 154 fractions in 25 patients applied to thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic body regions. Patients were routinely positioned based on skin marks, shifted to the calculated isocenter position and treated after correction via cone beam CT which served as gold standard. Prior to CBCT an additional surface scan by the Catalyst™ system was performed and compared to a reference surface image cropped from the planning CT to obtain shift vectors for an optimal surface match. These shift vectors were subtracted from the vectors obtained by CBCT correction to assess the theoretical setup error that would have occurred if the patients had been positioned using solely the Catalyst™ system. The mean theoretical set up-error and its standard deviation were calculated for all measured fractions and the results were compared to patient positioning based on skin marks only. Results Integration of the surface scan into the clinical workflow did not result in a significant time delay. Regarding the entire group, the mean setup error by using skin marks only was 0.0 ± 2.1 mm in lateral, −0.4 ± 2.4 mm in longitudinal, and 1.1 ± 2.6 mm vertical direction. The mean theoretical setup error that would have occurred using solely the Catalyst™ was −0.1 ± 2.1 mm laterally, −1.8 ± 5.4 mm longitudinally, and 1.4 ± 3.2 mm vertically. No significant difference was found in any direction. For thoracic targets the mean setup error based on the Catalyst™ was 0.6 ± 2.6 mm laterally, −5.0 ± 7.9 mm longitudinally, and 0.5 ± 3.2 mm vertically. For abdominal targets, the mean setup error was 0.3 ± 2.2 mm laterally, 2.6 ± 1.8 mm longitudinally, and 2.1 ± 5.5 mm vertically. For pelvic targets, the setup error was −0.9 ± 1.5 mm laterally, −1.7 ± 2.8 mm longitudinally, and 1.6 ± 2.2 mm vertically. A significant difference between Catalyst™ and skin mark based positioning was only observed in longitudinal direction of pelvic targets. Conclusion Optical surface scanning using Catalyst™ seems potentially useful for daily positioning at least to complement usual imaging modalities in most patients with acceptable accuracy, although a significant improvement compared to skin mark based positioning could not be derived from the evaluated data. However, this effect seemed to be rather caused by the unexpected high accuracy of skin mark based positioning than by inaccuracy using the Catalyst™. Further on, surface registration in longitudinal axis seemed less reliable especially in pelvic localization. Therefore further prospective evaluation based on strictly predefined protocols is needed to determine the optimal scanning approaches and parameters.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                daniel.reitz@med.uni-muenchen.de
                georg.carl@campus.lmu.de
                stephan.schoenecker@med.uni-muenchen.de
                montserrat.pazos@med.uni-muenchen.de
                philipp.freislederer@med.uni-muenchen.de
                maximilian.niyazi@med.uni-muenchen.de
                ute.ganswindt@i-med.ac.at
                filippo.alongi@sacrocuore.it
                michael.reiner@med.uni-muenchen.de
                claus.belka@med.uni-muenchen.de
                stefanie.corradini@med.uni-muenchen.de
                Journal
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiation Oncology (London, England)
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-717X
                16 July 2018
                16 July 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 128
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0477 2585, GRID grid.411095.8, Department of Radiation Oncology, , University Hospital, ; Marchioninistr 15, 81377 Munich LMU, Munich, Germany
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8853 2677, GRID grid.5361.1, Department of Radiation Oncology, , Medical University, ; Innsbruck, Austria
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1760 2489, GRID grid.416422.7, Department of Radiation Oncology, , Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, ; Verona, Negrar Italy
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000417571846, GRID grid.7637.5, University of Brescia, ; Brescia, Italy
                Article
                1072
                10.1186/s13014-018-1072-4
                6048710
                30012156
                269854eb-e699-4da2-a8de-dd61edde2387
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 March 2018
                : 4 July 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                radiotherapy,intrafraction motion,breast cancer,optical surface scanner

                Comments

                Comment on this article