Open AccessAssessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac
Author(s) -
FloresMartinez Everardo,
Cerviño Laura I.,
Pawlicki Todd,
Kim GweYa
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.12772
Subject(s) - cone beam computed tomography , workflow , nuclear medicine , linear particle accelerator , residual , medical imaging , image guided radiation therapy , medical physics , radiation therapy , computer science , medicine , biomedical engineering , beam (structure) , radiology , computed tomography , algorithm , optics , physics , database
Abstract Purpose In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac. Methods We performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV‐ or MV‐ CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles. Results Without the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re‐imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT. Conclusions The use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re‐imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery.