Premium
Comparison of a multileaf collimator tracking system and a robotic treatment couch tracking system for organ motion compensation during radiotherapy
Author(s) -
Menten Martin J.,
Guckenberger Matthias,
Herrmann Christian,
Krauß Andreas,
Nill Simeon,
Oelfke Uwe,
Wilbert Jürgen
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4761868
Subject(s) - multileaf collimator , hexapod , tracking (education) , tracking system , computer science , computer vision , motion compensation , match moving , dosimetry , motion simulator , collimator , artificial intelligence , nuclear medicine , motion (physics) , radiation therapy , kalman filter , medicine , radiation treatment planning , physics , robot , optics , radiology , psychology , pedagogy
Purpose: One limitation of accurate dose delivery in radiotherapy is intrafractional movement of the tumor or the entire patient which may lead to an underdosage of the target tissue or an overdosage of adjacent organs at risk. In order to compensate for this movement, different techniques have been developed. In this study the tracking performances of a multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking system and a robotic treatment couch tracking system were compared under equal conditions. Methods: MLC tracking was performed using a tracking system based on the Siemens 160 MLC. A HexaPOD robotic treatment couch tracking system was also installed at the same linac. A programmable 4D motion stage was used to reproduce motion trajectories with different target phantoms. Motion localization of the target was provided by the 4D tracking system of Calypso Medical Inc. The gained positional data served as input signal for the control systems of the MLC and HexaPOD tracking systems attempting to compensate for the target motion. The geometric and dosimetric accuracy for the tracking of eight different respiratory motion trajectories was investigated for both systems. The dosimetric accuracy of both systems was also evaluated for the tracking of five prostate motion trajectories. Results: For the respiratory motion the average root mean square error of all trajectories in y direction was reduced from 4.1 to 2.0 mm for MLC tracking and to 2.2 mm for HexaPOD tracking. In x direction it was reduced from 1.9 to 0.9 mm (MLC) and to 1.0 mm (HexaPOD). The average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for the respiratory motion trajectories was increased from 76.4% for no tracking to 89.8% and 95.3% for the MLC and the HexaPOD tracking systems, respectively. For the prostate motion trajectories the average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate was 60.1% when no tracking was applied and was improved to 85.0% for MLC tracking and 95.3% for the HexaPOD tracking system. Conclusions: Both systems clearly increased the geometric and dosimetric accuracy during tracking of respiratory motion trajectories. Thereby, the geometric accuracy was increased almost equally by both systems, whereas the dosimetric accuracy of the HexaPOD tracking system was slightly better for all considered respiratory motion trajectories. Substantial improvement of the dosimetric accuracy was also observed during tracking of prostate motion trajectories during an intensity‐modulated radiotherapy plan. Thereby, the HexaPOD tracking system showed better results than the MLC tracking.