Premium
SU‐F‐J‐47: Inherent Uncertainty in the Positional Shifts Determined by a Volumetric Cone Beam Imaging System
Author(s) -
Giri U,
Ganesh T,
Saini V,
Munshi A,
Sarkar B,
Mohanti B
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4955955
Subject(s) - isocenter , imaging phantom , standard deviation , cone beam computed tomography , nuclear medicine , image guided radiation therapy , medical imaging , systematic error , cone beam ct , mathematics , medicine , computer science , computed tomography , artificial intelligence , statistics , radiology
Purpose: To quantify inherent uncertainty associated with a volumetric imaging system in its determination of positional shifts. Methods: The study was performed on an Elekta Axesse™ linac's XVI cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system. A CT image data set of a Penta‐ Guide phantom was used as reference image by placing isocenter at the center of the phantom.The phantom was placed arbitrarily on the couch close to isocenter and CBCT images were obtained. The CBCT dataset was matched with the reference image using XVI software and the shifts were determined in 6‐dimensions. Without moving the phantom, this process was repeated 20 times consecutively within 30 minutes on a single day. Mean shifts and their standard deviations in all 6‐dimensions were determined for all the 20 instances of imaging. For any given day, the first set of shifts obtained was kept as reference and the deviations of the subsequent 19 sets from the reference set were scored. Mean differences and their standard deviations were determined. In this way, data were obtained for 30 consecutive working days. Results: Tabulating the mean deviations and their standard deviations observed on each day for the 30 measurement days, systematic and random errors in the determination of shifts by XVI software were calculated. The systematic errors were found to be 0.03, 0.04 and 0.03 mm while random errors were 0.05, 0.06 and 0.06 mm in lateral, craniocaudal and anterio‐posterior directions respectively. For rotational shifts, the systematic errors were 0.02°, 0.03° and 0.03° and random errors were 0.06°, 0.05° and 0.05° in pitch, roll and yaw directions respectively. Conclusion: The inherent uncertainties in every image guidance system should be assessed and baseline values established at the time of its commissioning. These shall be periodically tested as part of the QA protocol.