SU‐E‐J‐59: Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery

N. Wen, J. Kim, S. Kim, C. Glide‐hurst, JianYue Jin, J. Gordon, T. Nurushev, I. Chetty, K. Levin, B. Movsas, S. Ryu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare localization accuracies between an ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for single fraction spine adiosurgery. The work also aimed to evaluate the inherent systematic deviation of both ExacTrac and CBCT systems to achieve highly accurate localization in the spine radiosurgery. Methods: ExacTrac and CBCT imaging systems were evaluated using the linac isocenter as the mutual reference point. First, a BB was placed in an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. The phantom was localized with both imaging systems and the procedure was repeated 12 times. These results were used to devise a localization protocol using both imaging systems in spine radiosurgery, and employed for 51 patients (81 isocenters) prescribed for single fraction treatment. The displacement discrepancy between the isocenter and two systems were quantified in four dimensions (three translations, one rotation). A Student's two‐tailed t‐test was used to test for significant differences between the two imaging systems. Results: The phantom study showed 1.4±0.5, 0.6±0.5, and 0.1±0.5 mm differences between the two imaging systems in the anterior/posterior (A/P), superior/inferior (S/I) and left/right (L/R) directions, respectively. The angular difference was minimal along all three axes. The patient study revealed similar isocenter discrepancies between ExacTrac and CBCT of 1.1 ± 0.7 mm, 1.0±0.9 mm, and 0.2±0.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively, with the A/P and S/I directions showing statistical significance ((t(80) = 13.5 and 7.6 respectively, p = 0.000). The couch yaw discrepancy was 0 ± 0.3°. Overall, 1 mm systematic differences were observed in the A/P and S/I directions between ExacTrac and CBCT localization systems, both in phantom and patient. A procedure was developed to mitigate this systematic discrepancy. Conclusions: These findings have justified our patient localization tolerance levels of 2 mm translation and 1 degree rotation for spine SRS treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Radiosurgery
Spine
Yaws
Students
Direction compound
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Wen, N., Kim, J., Kim, S., Glide‐hurst, C., Jin, J., Gordon, J., ... Ryu, S. (2012). SU‐E‐J‐59: Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery. Medical Physics, 39(6). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4734894

SU‐E‐J‐59 : Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery. / Wen, N.; Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Glide‐hurst, C.; Jin, JianYue; Gordon, J.; Nurushev, T.; Chetty, I.; Levin, K.; Movsas, B.; Ryu, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 01.01.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wen, N, Kim, J, Kim, S, Glide‐hurst, C, Jin, J, Gordon, J, Nurushev, T, Chetty, I, Levin, K, Movsas, B & Ryu, S 2012, 'SU‐E‐J‐59: Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery', Medical Physics, vol. 39, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4734894
Wen, N. ; Kim, J. ; Kim, S. ; Glide‐hurst, C. ; Jin, JianYue ; Gordon, J. ; Nurushev, T. ; Chetty, I. ; Levin, K. ; Movsas, B. ; Ryu, S. / SU‐E‐J‐59 : Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery. In: Medical Physics. 2012 ; Vol. 39, No. 6.
@article{8f6c56096b8242f1b4acb992ae2ae7c7,
title = "SU‐E‐J‐59: Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare localization accuracies between an ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for single fraction spine adiosurgery. The work also aimed to evaluate the inherent systematic deviation of both ExacTrac and CBCT systems to achieve highly accurate localization in the spine radiosurgery. Methods: ExacTrac and CBCT imaging systems were evaluated using the linac isocenter as the mutual reference point. First, a BB was placed in an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. The phantom was localized with both imaging systems and the procedure was repeated 12 times. These results were used to devise a localization protocol using both imaging systems in spine radiosurgery, and employed for 51 patients (81 isocenters) prescribed for single fraction treatment. The displacement discrepancy between the isocenter and two systems were quantified in four dimensions (three translations, one rotation). A Student's two‐tailed t‐test was used to test for significant differences between the two imaging systems. Results: The phantom study showed 1.4±0.5, 0.6±0.5, and 0.1±0.5 mm differences between the two imaging systems in the anterior/posterior (A/P), superior/inferior (S/I) and left/right (L/R) directions, respectively. The angular difference was minimal along all three axes. The patient study revealed similar isocenter discrepancies between ExacTrac and CBCT of 1.1 ± 0.7 mm, 1.0±0.9 mm, and 0.2±0.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively, with the A/P and S/I directions showing statistical significance ((t(80) = 13.5 and 7.6 respectively, p = 0.000). The couch yaw discrepancy was 0 ± 0.3°. Overall, 1 mm systematic differences were observed in the A/P and S/I directions between ExacTrac and CBCT localization systems, both in phantom and patient. A procedure was developed to mitigate this systematic discrepancy. Conclusions: These findings have justified our patient localization tolerance levels of 2 mm translation and 1 degree rotation for spine SRS treatment.",
author = "N. Wen and J. Kim and S. Kim and C. Glide‐hurst and JianYue Jin and J. Gordon and T. Nurushev and I. Chetty and K. Levin and B. Movsas and S. Ryu",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4734894",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐J‐59

T2 - Dual Imaging Guided Localization System for Spine Radiosurgery

AU - Wen, N.

AU - Kim, J.

AU - Kim, S.

AU - Glide‐hurst, C.

AU - Jin, JianYue

AU - Gordon, J.

AU - Nurushev, T.

AU - Chetty, I.

AU - Levin, K.

AU - Movsas, B.

AU - Ryu, S.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare localization accuracies between an ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for single fraction spine adiosurgery. The work also aimed to evaluate the inherent systematic deviation of both ExacTrac and CBCT systems to achieve highly accurate localization in the spine radiosurgery. Methods: ExacTrac and CBCT imaging systems were evaluated using the linac isocenter as the mutual reference point. First, a BB was placed in an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. The phantom was localized with both imaging systems and the procedure was repeated 12 times. These results were used to devise a localization protocol using both imaging systems in spine radiosurgery, and employed for 51 patients (81 isocenters) prescribed for single fraction treatment. The displacement discrepancy between the isocenter and two systems were quantified in four dimensions (three translations, one rotation). A Student's two‐tailed t‐test was used to test for significant differences between the two imaging systems. Results: The phantom study showed 1.4±0.5, 0.6±0.5, and 0.1±0.5 mm differences between the two imaging systems in the anterior/posterior (A/P), superior/inferior (S/I) and left/right (L/R) directions, respectively. The angular difference was minimal along all three axes. The patient study revealed similar isocenter discrepancies between ExacTrac and CBCT of 1.1 ± 0.7 mm, 1.0±0.9 mm, and 0.2±0.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively, with the A/P and S/I directions showing statistical significance ((t(80) = 13.5 and 7.6 respectively, p = 0.000). The couch yaw discrepancy was 0 ± 0.3°. Overall, 1 mm systematic differences were observed in the A/P and S/I directions between ExacTrac and CBCT localization systems, both in phantom and patient. A procedure was developed to mitigate this systematic discrepancy. Conclusions: These findings have justified our patient localization tolerance levels of 2 mm translation and 1 degree rotation for spine SRS treatment.

AB - Purpose: To compare localization accuracies between an ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for single fraction spine adiosurgery. The work also aimed to evaluate the inherent systematic deviation of both ExacTrac and CBCT systems to achieve highly accurate localization in the spine radiosurgery. Methods: ExacTrac and CBCT imaging systems were evaluated using the linac isocenter as the mutual reference point. First, a BB was placed in an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. The phantom was localized with both imaging systems and the procedure was repeated 12 times. These results were used to devise a localization protocol using both imaging systems in spine radiosurgery, and employed for 51 patients (81 isocenters) prescribed for single fraction treatment. The displacement discrepancy between the isocenter and two systems were quantified in four dimensions (three translations, one rotation). A Student's two‐tailed t‐test was used to test for significant differences between the two imaging systems. Results: The phantom study showed 1.4±0.5, 0.6±0.5, and 0.1±0.5 mm differences between the two imaging systems in the anterior/posterior (A/P), superior/inferior (S/I) and left/right (L/R) directions, respectively. The angular difference was minimal along all three axes. The patient study revealed similar isocenter discrepancies between ExacTrac and CBCT of 1.1 ± 0.7 mm, 1.0±0.9 mm, and 0.2±0.9 mm in the A/P, S/I, and L/R directions, respectively, with the A/P and S/I directions showing statistical significance ((t(80) = 13.5 and 7.6 respectively, p = 0.000). The couch yaw discrepancy was 0 ± 0.3°. Overall, 1 mm systematic differences were observed in the A/P and S/I directions between ExacTrac and CBCT localization systems, both in phantom and patient. A procedure was developed to mitigate this systematic discrepancy. Conclusions: These findings have justified our patient localization tolerance levels of 2 mm translation and 1 degree rotation for spine SRS treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024823573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024823573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4734894

DO - 10.1118/1.4734894

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024823573

VL - 39

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -