Open AccessEnd to end comparison of surface‐guided imaging versus stereoscopic X‐rays for the SRS treatment of multiple metastases with a single isocenter using 3D anthropomorphic gel phantoms
Author(s) -
Bry Victoria,
Saenz Daniel,
Pappas Evangelos,
Kalaitzakis Georgios,
Papanikolaou Nikos,
Rasmussen Karl
Publication year - 2022
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/acm2.13576
Subject(s) - isocenter , imaging phantom , radiosurgery , nuclear medicine , cone beam computed tomography , radiation treatment planning , image guided radiation therapy , medicine , medical imaging , materials science , biomedical engineering , radiation therapy , computed tomography , radiology
Two end‐to‐end tests evaluate the accuracy of a surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system (CRAD Catalyst HD) for position verification in comparison to a stereoscopic x‐ray imaging system (Brainlab Exactrac ) for single‐isocenter, multiple metastases stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using 3D polymer gel inserts. Materials and methods A 3D‐printed phantom (Prime phantom, RTsafe PC, Athens, Greece) with two separate cylindrical polymer gel inserts were immobilized in open‐face masks and treated with a single isocentric, multitarget SRS plan. Planning was done in Brainlab (Elements) to treat five metastatic lesions in one fraction, and initial setup was done using cone beam computed tomography. Positional verification was done using orthogonal X‐ray imaging (Brainlab Exactrac) and/or a surface imaging system (CRAD Catalyst HD, Uppsala, Sweden), and shift discrepancies were recorded for each couch angle. Forty‐two hours after irradiation, the gel phantom was scanned in a 1.5 Tesla MRI, and images were fused with the patient computed tomography data/structure set for further analysis of spatial dose distribution. Results Discrepancies between the CRAD Catalyst HD system and Brainlab Exactrac were <1 mm in the translational direction and <0.5° in the angular direction at noncoplanar couch angles. Dose parameters ( D Mean% , D 95% ) and 3D gamma index passing rates were evaluated for both setup modalities for each planned target volume (PTV) at a variety of thresholds: 3%/2 mm (Exactrac≥93.1% and CRAD ≥87.2%), 5%/2 mm (Exactrac≥95.6% and CRAD ≥94.6%), and 5%/1 mm (Exactrac≥81.8% and CRAD ≥83.7%). Conclusion Dose metrics for a setup with surface imaging was found to be consistent with setup using x‐ray imaging, demonstrating high accuracy and reproducibility for treatment delivery. Results indicate the feasibility of using surface imaging for position verification at noncoplanar couch angles for single‐isocenter, multiple‐target SRS using end‐to‐end quality assurance (QA) testing with 3D polymer gel dosimetry.