Minimal mask immobilization with optical surface guidance for head and neck radiotherapy

Bo Zhao, Genevieve Maquilan, Steve Jiang, David L Schwartz, Bo Zhao, Genevieve Maquilan, Steve Jiang, David L Schwartz

Abstract

Purpose: Full face and neck thermoplastic masks provide standard-of-care immobilization for patients receiving H&N IMRT. However, these masks are uncomfortable and increase skin dose. The purpose of this pilot trial was to investigate the feasibility and setup accuracy of minimal face and neck mask immobilization with optical surface guidance.

Methods: Twenty patients enrolled onto this IRB-approved protocol. Patients were immobilized with masks securing only forehead and chin. Shoulder movement was restricted by either moldable cushion or hand held strap retractors. Positional information, including isocenter location and CT skin contours, were imported to a commercial surface image guidance system. Patients typically received standard-of-care IMRT to 60-70 Gy in 30-33 fractions. Patients were first set up to surface markings with optical image guidance referenced to regions of interest (ROIs) on simulation CT images. Positioning was confirmed by in-room CBCT. Following six-dimensional robotic couch correction, a new optical real-time surface image was acquired to track intrafraction motion and to serve as a reference surface for setup at the next treatment fraction. Therapists manually recorded total treatment time as well as couch shifts based on kV imaging. Intrafractional ROI motion tracking was automatically recorded by the optical image guidance system. Patient comfort was assessed by self-administered surveys.

Results: Setup error was measured as six-dimensional shifts (vertical/longitudinal/lateral/rotation/pitch/roll). Mean error values were -0.51 ± 2.42 mm, -0.49 ± 3.30 mm, 0.23 ± 2.58 mm, -0.15 ± 1.01o , -0.02 ± 1.19o , and 0.06 ± 1.08o , respectively. Average treatment time was 21.6 ± 8.4 mins). Subjective comfort during surface-guided treatment was confirmed on patient surveys.

Conclusion: These pilot results confirm feasibility of minimal mask immobilization combined with commercially available optical image guidance. Patient acceptance of minimal mask immobilization has been encouraging. Follow-up validation, with direct comparison to standard mask immobilization, appears warranted.

Keywords: SGRT; head and neck; image guidance; immobilization; interfraction motion; intrafraction motion.

© 2017 UT Southwestern. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Original short 3‐point mask (Qfix, model RT‐1876KSDGLF). (b) Mask modified with straight cuts at top and bottom. (c) Modified mask in place over only forehead and chin. (d) Overall patient setup. (e) Patient treatment plan with low neck coverage. (f) ROI selections on AlignRT relative to isocenter location. These two ROIs can be used to create a composite ROI for intrafractional tracking.
Figure 2
Figure 2
System and random errors plotted by week for (a) translational and (b) rotational shifts; (c) examples of intrafraction motion patterns (see text for details); (d) total in‐room treatment time per fraction plotted across each week.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation between angular correction and translational shift: (a) rotation and lateral shift, (b) pitch and vertical shift.

References

    1. Lee N, Chuang C, Quivey JM, et al. Skin toxicity due to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for head‐and‐neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:630–637.
    1. Peng JL, Kahler D, Li JG, et al. Characterization of a real‐time surface image‐guided stereotactic positioning system. Med Phys. 2010;37:5421–5433.
    1. Kelly A, Hardcastle N, Metcalfe P, et al. Surface dosimetry for breast radiotherapy in the presence of immobilization cast material. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:1001.
    1. Krengli M, Gaiano S, Mones E, et al. Reproducibility of patient setup by surface image registration system in conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2009;4:1.
    1. Cerviño LI, Detorie N, Taylor M, et al. Initial clinical experience with a frameless and maskless stereotactic radiosurgery treatment. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2:54–62.
    1. Pan H, Cerviño LI, Pawlicki T, et al. Frameless, real‐time, surface imaging‐guided radiosurgery: clinical outcomes for brain metastases. Neurosurgery. 2012;71:844–852.
    1. Alderliesten T, Sonke J‐J, Betgen A, van Vliet‐Vroegindeweij C, Remeijer P. 3D surface imaging for monitoring intrafraction motion in frameless stereotactic body radiotherapy of lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;105:155–160.
    1. Wiant D, Squire S, Liu H, Maurer J, Hayes TL, Sintay B. A prospective evaluation of open face masks for head and neck radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:e259–e267.
    1. Li G, Lovelock DM, Mechalakos J, et al. Migration from full‐head mask to open‐face mask for immobilization of patients with head and neck cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;14:243–254.
    1. Schreibmann E, Elder E, Fox T. Automated quality assurance for image‐guided radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10:2919.
    1. van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Paper presented at: Seminars in radiation oncology. 2004.
    1. van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque JV. The probability of correct target dosage: dose‐population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:1121–1135.
    1. Velec M, Waldron JN, O'Sullivan B, et al. Cone‐beam CT assessment of interfraction and intrafraction setup error of two head‐and‐neck cancer thermoplastic masks. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:949–955.
    1. Den RB, Doemer A, Kubicek G, et al. Daily image guidance with cone‐beam computed tomography forâ head‐and‐neck cancer intensity‐modulated radiotherapy: aâ prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1353–1359.
    1. Pang PPE, Hendry J, Cheah SL, et al. An assessment of the magnitude of intra‐fraction movement of head‐and‐neck IMRT cases and its implication on the action‐level of the imaging protocol. Radiother Oncol. 2014;112:437–441.
    1. Vaandering A, Lee JA, Renard L, Grégoire V. Evaluation of MVCT protocols for brain and head and neck tumor patients treated with helical tomotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:50–56.
    1. van Kranen S, van Beek S, Rasch C, van Herk M, Sonke J‐J. Setup uncertainties of anatomical sub‐regions in head‐and‐neck cancer patients after offline CBCT guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1566–1573.
    1. Zhang L, Garden AS, Lo J, et al. Multiple regions‐of‐interest analysis of setup uncertainties for head‐and‐neck cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:1559–1569.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel