OBJECTIVE: Objective parameters for decision on adaptive radiotherapy depend on patient, tumor and treatment related factors. Present study reports geometric uncertainties occurring during high precision radiotherapy, beam fluence analysis and serial exit dose measurement as a patient-specific tool for adaptive radiotherapy.
METHODS: Serial exit dose fluence of 24 patients (at baseline and mid-treatment) undergoing IMRT/VMAT treatment were measured. Baseline and midtreatment exit dose evaluation was done using gafchromic films in predefined region of interest. Difference of volume of GTV at baseline (from simulation CT scan) and midtreatment CBCT scan was calculated (ΔGTV).
RESULTS: Population based systematic errors (mm) were 4.15, 2.26, 0.88 and random errors (mm) were 2.56, 3.69, and 2.03 in mediolateral (ML), craniocaudal (CC) and anteroposterior (AP) directions respectively. Gamma pass rate reduced with incremental shift. For a 5 mm shift, maximum deviation was found in anteroposterior axis (22.16 ± 7.50) and lowest in mediolateral axis (12.85 ± 4.95). On serial measurement of exit dose fluence, tumor shrinkage significantly influenced gamma pass rate. The mean gamma pass rate was significantly different between groups with 50% shrinkage of tumor volume (86.36 vs 96.24, P = 0.008, on multivariate analysis P = 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid fall of gamma pass rate was observed for set up error of ≥3 mm. Serial measurement of exit dose fluence by radiochromic film is a feasible method of exit dose comparison in IMRT/VMAT, where EPID dosimetry is not available with linear accelerator configuration. Our study suggests that there is a significant difference between gamma pass rates of baseline and mid treatment exit dose fluence with greater than 50% tumor shrinkage.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse correlations between planning factors including plan geometry and plan complexity with robustness to patient setup errors.
METHODS: Multiple-target brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans were obtained through the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) international treatment planning challenge (2018). The challenge dataset consisted of five intra-cranial targets with a 20 Gy prescription. Setup error was simulated using an in-house tool. Dose to targets was assessed via dose covering 99 % (D99 %) of gross tumour volume (GTV) and 98 % of planning target volume (PTV). Dose to organs at risk was assessed using volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy and maximum dose covering 0.03 cc of brainstem. Plan complexity was assessed via edge metric, modulation complexity score, mean multi-leaf collimator (MLC) gap, mean MLC speed and plan modulation.
RESULTS: Even for small (0.5 mm/°) errors, GTV D99 % was reduced by up to 20 %. The strongest correlation was found between lower complexity plans (larger mean MLC gap and lower edge metric) and higher robustness to setup error. Lower complexity plans had 1 %-20 % fewer targets/scenarios with GTV D99 % falling below the specified tolerance threshold. These complexity metrics correlated with 100 % isodose volume sphericity and dose conformity, though similar conformity was achievable with a range of complexities.
CONCLUSIONS: A higher level of importance should be directed towards plan complexity when considering plan robustness. It is recommended when planning multi-target SRS, larger MLC gaps and lower MLC aperture irregularity be considered during plan optimisation due to higher robustness should patient positioning errors occur.

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory motion and patient setup error both contribute to the dosimetric uncertainty in radiotherapy of lung tumors. Managing these uncertainties for free-breathing treatments is usually done by margin-based approaches or robust optimization. However, breathing motion can be irregular and concerns have been raised for the robustness of the treatment plans. We have previously reported the dosimetric effects of the respiratory motion, without setup uncertainties, in lung tumor photon radiotherapy using free-breathing images. In this study, we include setup uncertainty.
METHODS: Tumor positions from cine-CT images acquired in free-breathing were combined with per-fraction patient shifts to simulate treatment scenarios. A total of 14 patients with 300 tumor positions were used to evaluate treatment plans based on 4DCT. Four planning methods aiming at delivering 54 Gy as median tumor dose in three fractions were compared. The planning methods were denoted robust 4D (RB4), isodose to the PTV with a central higher dose (ISD), the ISD method normalized to the intended median tumor dose (IRN) and homogeneous fluence to the PTV (FLU).
RESULTS: For all planning methods 95% of the intended dose was achieved with at least 90% probability with RB4 and FLU having equal CTV D50% values at this probability. FLU gave the most consistent results in terms of CTV D50% spread and dose homogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the simulated patient shifts and tumor motions being larger than observed in the 4DCTs the dosimetric impact was suggested to be small. RB4 or FLU are recommended for the planning of free-breathing treatments.

We aimed to determine the impact of air inflow into vacuum-type immobilization devices (VIDs) on setup errors. We assigned 70 patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer to groups V (n = 34) or N (n = 36) according to whether the VIDs were deflated weekly or not deflated during treatment, respectively. We calculated systematic errors (Σ) as the standard deviations (SDs) of mean errors, and random errors (σ) as the root mean square of SDs in each patient. We compared overall means (μ), SDs (SDoverall), random errors and systematic errors. We also measured temporary pressure changes in VIDs to determine the influence of pressure changes in VIDs on setup errors. The μ was within 0.20 mm and 0.2° in both groups, whereas SDoverall significantly differed between them. The SDoverall differed the most in the Roll axes of groups N (0. 87°) and V (0.58°). The Σ and σ values were lower in all axes of group V than in group N. Despite the initial deflation target of - 70 kPa, the pressure in VIDs reached - 5 kPa at the end of treatment. However, weekly deflation apparently maintained pressure at - 20 kPa. Effective pressure control in VIDs can reduce patient-by-patient variation and improve setup reproducibility for individual patients, consequently resulting in small variations among overall setup errors.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to assess inter- and intrafraction errors for two patient immobilisation devices in the context of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy: a vacuum cushion and a simple arm support.
METHODS: Twenty patients who were treated with lung stereotactic body radiation therapy in supine position with arms above their head were included in the study. Ten patients were setup in a vacuum cushion (Bluebag™, Elekta) and ten other patients with a simple arm support (Posirest™, Civco). A pretreatment four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography and a post-treatment three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography were acquired to compare positioning and immobilisation accuracy. Based on a rigid registration with the planning computed tomography on the spine at the target level, translational and rotational errors were reported.
RESULTS: The median number of fractions per treatment was 5 (range: 3-10). Mean interfraction errors based on 112 four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies were similar for both setups with deviations less than or equal to 1.3mm in lateral and vertical direction and 1.2° in roll and yaw. For longitudinal translational errors, mean interfraction errors were 0.7mm with vacuum cushion and -3.9mm with arm support. Based on 111 three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographies, mean lateral, longitudinal and vertical intrafraction errors were -0.1mm, -0.2mm and 0.0mm respectively (SD: 1.0, 1.2 and 1.0mm respectively) for the patients setup with vacuum cushion, and mean vertical, longitudinal and lateral intrafraction errors were -0.3mm, -0.7mm and 0.1mm respectively (SD: 2.3, 1.8 and 1.4mm respectively) for the patients setup with arm support. Intrafraction errors means were not statistically different between both positions but standard deviations were statistically larger with arm support.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study showed similar inter and intrafraction mean deviations between both positioning but a large variability in intrafraction observed with arm support suggested a more accurate immobilization with vacuum cushion.

BACKGROUND: Surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) is adopted by several institutions; however, reports on the phantoms used to assess the precision of the SGRT setup are limited.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a phantom to verify the accuracy of the irradiation position during skin mark-less SGRT.
METHODS: An acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic cube phantom with a diameter of 150 mm on each side containing a dummy target of 15 mm and two types of body surface-shaped phantoms (breast/face shape) that could be attached to the cube phantom were fabricated. Films can be inserted on four sides of the cubic phantom (left, right, anterior and posterior), and the center of radiation can be calculated by irradiating the dummy target with orthogonal MV beams. Three types of SGRT using a VOXELAN-HEV600M (Electronics Research&Development Corporation, Okayama, Japan) were evaluated using this phantom: (i) SGRTCT-a SGRT set-up based solely on a computed tomography (CT)-reference image. (ii) SGRTCT + CBCT-a method where cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) matching was performed after SGRTCT. (iii) SGRTScan-a resetup technique using a scan reference image obtained after completing the (ii) step.
RESULTS: Both the breast and face phantoms were recognized in the SGRT system without problems. SGRTScan ensure precision within 1 mm/1° for breast and face verification, respectively. All SGRT methods showed comparable rotational accuracies with no significant disparities.
CONCLUSIONS: The developed phantom was useful for verifying the accuracy of skin mark-less SGRT position matching. The SGRTScan demonstrated the feasibility of achieving skin-mark less SGRT with high accuracy, with deviations of less than 1 mm. Additional research is necessary to evaluate the suitability of the developed phantoms for use in various facilities and systems. This phantom could be used for postal surveys in the future.

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a skin marker-less patient setup using a surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for extremity radiotherapy. Twenty-five patients who underwent radiotherapy to the extremities were included in this retrospective study. The first group consisted of 10 patients and underwent a traditional setup procedure using skin marks and lasers. The second group comprised 15 patients and had a skin marker-less setup procedure that used an SGRT system only. To compare the two setup procedures for setup accuracy, the mean 3D vector shift magnitude was 0.9 mm for the traditional setup procedure and 0.5 mm for the skin marker-less setup procedure (p < 0.01). In addition, SGRT systems have been suggested to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of patient setups and consistently reduce interfractional setup errors. These results indicate that a skin marker-less patient setup procedure using an SGRT system is useful for extremity irradiation.

This study analyse setup time (ST) and frequency of on-board imaging for stereotactic abdomen (liver, stomach), lung, and spine radiotherapy in the absence of automatic rotational correction. Total 53 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) patients, 28 of abdomen, 19 lung, and 6 spine treated for 230 sessions in O-ring gantry accelerator were evaluated for ST analysis. The mean setup time for all patients, abdomen, lung, and spine cases were 7.7 ± 7.4 min, 9.2 ± 9.2 min, 6.3 ± 4.1 min, and 5.5 ± 3.3 min, respectively. Median number CBCT was 2. 96% of cases had a CBCT between 1 and 3, and 9 (4%) had ≥ 4 CBCTs. Overall, 38.1%, 35.5%, 22.1%, 2.2%, and 2.2% of setup time fall into window of 0-5 min, 5-10 min, 10-20 min, 20-30 min, and > 30 min. Most difficult challenge is to negotiate with unknown rotational errors. It will be easy to dealt with them without automatic rotational correction if values are known.

OBJECTIVE: By employing three surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT)-assisted positioning methods, we conducted a prospective study of patients undergoing SGRT-based deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) radiotherapy using a Sentine/Catalys system. The aim of this study was to optimize the initial positioning workflow of SGRT-DIBH radiotherapy for breast cancer.
METHODS: A total of 124 patients were divided into three groups to conduct a prospective comparative study of the setup accuracy and efficiency for the daily initial setup of SGRT-DIBH breast radiotherapy. Group A was subjected to skin marker plus SGRT verification, Group B underwent SGRT optical feedback plus auto-positioning, and Group C was subjected to skin marker plus SGRT auto-positioning. We evaluated setup accuracy and efficiency using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) verification data and the total setup time.
RESULTS: In groups A, B, and C, the mean and standard deviation of the translational setup-error vectors were small, with the highest values of the three directions observed in group A (2.4 ± 1.6, 2.9 ± 1.8, and 2.8 ± 2.1 mm). The rotational vectors in group B (1.8 ± 0.7°, 2.1 ± 0.8°, and 1.8 ± 0.7°) were significantly larger than those in groups A and C, and the Group C setup required the shortest amount of time, at 1.5 ± 0.3 min, while that of Group B took the longest time, at 2.6 ± 0.9 min.
CONCLUSIONS: SGRT one-key calibration was found to be more suitable when followed by skin marker/tattoo and in-room laser positioning, establishing it as an optimal daily initial set-up protocol for breast DIBH radiotherapy. This modality also proved to be suitable for free-breathing breast cancer radiotherapy, and its widespread clinical use is recommended.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a hybrid multi-channel network to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors using dose difference (DD) maps and gamma maps generated from low-resolution detectors in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).
METHODS: A total of 68 plans with 358 beams of IMRT were included in this study. The MLC leaf positions of all control points in the original IMRT plans were modified to simulate four types of errors: shift error, opening error, closing error, and random error. These modified plans were imported into the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate the predicted dose, while the PTW seven29 phantom was utilized to obtain the measured dose distributions. Based on the measured and predicted dose, DD maps and gamma maps, both with and without errors, were generated, resulting in a dataset with 3222 samples. The network\'s performance was evaluated using various metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, ROC curves, and normalized confusion matrix. Besides, other baseline methods, such as single-channel hybrid network, ResNet-18, and Swin-Transformer, were also evaluated as a comparison.
RESULTS: The experimental results showed that the multi-channel hybrid network outperformed other methods, demonstrating higher average precision, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-scores, with values of 0.87, 0.89, 0.85, 0.97, and 0.85, respectively. The multi-channel hybrid network also achieved higher AUC values in the random errors (0.964) and the error-free (0.946) categories. Although the average accuracy of the multi-channel hybrid network was only marginally better than that of ResNet-18 and Swin Transformer, it significantly outperformed them regarding precision in the error-free category.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed multi-channel hybrid network exhibits a high level of accuracy in identifying MLC errors using low-resolution detectors. The method offers an effective and reliable solution for promoting quality and safety of IMRT QA.