Physics contribution
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for On-Line Image Guidance of Lung Stereotactic Radiotherapy: Localization, Verification, and Intrafraction Tumor Position

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.022Get rights and content

Purpose: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in-room imaging allows accurate inter- and intrafraction target localization in stereotactic body radiotherapy of lung tumors.

Methods and Materials: Image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy was performed in 28 patients (89 fractions) with medically inoperable Stage T1-T2 non–small-cell lung carcinoma. The targets from the CBCT and planning data set (helical or four-dimensional CT) were matched on-line to determine the couch shift required for target localization. Matching based on the bony anatomy was also performed retrospectively. Verification of target localization was done using either megavoltage portal imaging or CBCT imaging; repeat CBCT imaging was used to assess the intrafraction tumor position.

Results: The mean three-dimensional tumor motion for patients with upper lesions (n = 21) and mid-lobe or lower lobe lesions (n = 7) was 4.2 and 6.7 mm, respectively. The mean difference between the target and bony anatomy matching using CBCT was 6.8 mm (SD, 4.9, maximum, 30.3); the difference exceeded 13.9 mm in 10% of the treatment fractions. The mean residual error after target localization using CBCT imaging was 1.9 mm (SD, 1.1, maximum, 4.4). The mean intrafraction tumor deviation was significantly greater (5.3 mm vs. 2.2 mm) when the interval between localization and repeat CBCT imaging (n = 8) exceeded 34 min.

Conclusion: In-room volumetric imaging, such as CBCT, is essential for target localization accuracy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy. Imaging that relies on bony anatomy as a surrogate of the target may provide erroneous results in both localization and verification.

Introduction

The importance of target localization in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) cannot be overstated, because high doses are delivered in a limited number of treatment fractions. Targeting errors are often unrecoverable in this context. Therefore, the major focus in SBRT has been the development of stereotactic body immobilization devices and image-guidance systems for target localization. The stereotactic body frame (SBF) provides stereotactic localization when in-room volumetric imaging is not available (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Novel image-guidance systems have also been used in lung SBRT. Uematsu et al. (8) have pioneered this approach by incorporating a linear accelerator and computed tomography (CT) scanner with a common couch in the treatment room. Onishi et al. (9) developed a CT on rails system that also allows gating using a patient self-breath hold device. Similar to the image-guidance system presented in the present study, these systems provide excellent target visualization with volumetric imaging and the ability to assess tumor motion. Imaging-guidance systems that rely on fluoroscopic imaging of implanted fiducial markers for target localization and tracking have also been used in lung SBRT (10, 11).

Although the clinical data for SBRT are still maturing, the investigators using these image-guidance systems have contributed much of the current clinical lung SBRT data. Their results have demonstrated excellent local control using various dose-fractionation schedules (10, 12, 13, 14, 15).

Conventional linear accelerators have also been used to acquire volumetric megavoltage (MV) images for target localization in the treatment room, although these have not been specifically applied to lung SBRT. MV cone-beam CT (CBCT) has been used for treatment verification by acquiring imaging portals over a partial gantry rotation (16). The acquired two-dimensional (2D) projections are reconstructed using standard CBCT algorithms to generate volumetric images, which provide improved visualization of low-contrast structures. Similarly, the MV treatment beam has been used to acquire CT images on the treatment unit for localization of thoracic lesions treated with single fraction SBRT (17). The slice thickness of the CT images was 2 cm, which correspond to the width of the multileaf collimator leaves.

In this report, we present an image-guided approach for lung SBRT using kilovoltage (kV) CBCT for target localization. We retrospectively matched all localization imaging data sets to the planning CT data sets using bony anatomy to determine the applicability of the vertebrae as a surrogate for tumor position. In addition, we assessed residual errors after target localization and the intrafraction reproducibility of target position using repeat CBCT imaging.

Section snippets

Patients

A total of 31 patients with Stage T1-T2 non–small-cell lung carcinoma were treated with SBRT between March 2004 and June 2006 at Princess Margaret Hospital. Of the 31 patients, 30 were deemed medically inoperable by an experienced thoracic surgeon and 1 had refused surgery. For the first 3 patients treated, MV portal imaging was used for localization and the CBCT imaging was analyzed off-line. The subsequent 28 patients were treated with on-line CBCT image guidance and their data were analyzed

Results

A total of 28 patients with Stage T1-T2 non–small-cell lung carcinoma were included in this study and were treated using image-guided SBRT. The target volumes (Table 1) were delineated on helical CT data sets (n = 14) or 4DCT data sets (n = 14). The mean GTV from helical CT was 12.3 cm3 and the mean ITV from 4DCT was 10.0 cm3. The mean PTV for all patients was 41.6 cm3 (range, 10.0–107.6 cm3).

Target motion (Table 2) was assessed before treatment for all patients. The mean tumor motion for all

Discussion

The results of this study have demonstrated the benefits of in-room CBCT image guidance for inter- and intrafraction tumor localization and verification for lung SBRT. In particular, we found matching using bony anatomy as a surrogate of the tumor and MV portal imaging would result in clinically significant errors in localization and verification, respectively.

Megavoltage portal imaging was not used for target localization. However, to simulate the use of MV portal imaging, we retrospectively

Acknowledgments

The authors express our appreciation to Doug Moseley, Stephen Ansell, Graham Wilson, Sami Siddique, Elizabeth White, Tim Craig, Geri Ottewell, Danielle Miller, and Shannon Pearson. The authors thank Gregory Pond for the statistical analysis of the data presented. The authors thank the radiation oncologists in the lung site group at Princess Margaret Hospital: Drs. John Cho, Gabrielle Kane, Alex Sun, and John Waldron. Thanks also to Dr. Laura Dawson for insightful discussions related to SBRT and

References (30)

Cited by (0)

Financial and technical support provided by Elekta Oncology Systems, the Addie MacNaughton Thoracic Radiation Oncology Fund, U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Aging (Grant AG19381), and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering (Grant 8R01EB002470).

Conflict of interest: none.

View full text