Comparative analysis of setup margin calculation in cone beam CT, by van Herk formula, using two different image registration methods
- 20 March 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
- Vol. 22, e92
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s1460396923000122
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to quantify the difference in setup margin in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) setup imaging, utilising the van Herk formula for two different image registration methods. Two alternative techniques of registration, bony landmark (BL) matching and soft tissue matching (ST) for head and neck cancer patients, were investigated. Methods: This study included 30 head and neck cancer patients who received a simultaneous integrated boost of 54–60–66 Gy in 30 fractions, using volumetric modulated arc treatment. A total of 867 CBCT images were acquired during patient setup and further analysed for setup margin calculation. A region of interest was described using a clip box between the reference and CBCT image to calculate the patient’s positional inaccuracy in three translational directions, X, Y and Z, where X was mediolateral, Y was the cranial-caudal, and Z was the anterior-posterior direction in the patient-based coordinate system, respectively. The shifts were captured by altering the BL and ST matching, and the setup margin was calculated using the van Herk formula (=2·5Σ + 0·7σ where Σ was the systematic and σ was the random error). Results: The difference between bony and ST matching in most cases was observed to be 1·4 mm in all translational directions at a 95% confidence interval and <1° in all rotational directions. The rotational error was found to be below the action level (±3°); hence, no corrections related to rotational error were made. The translational setup margin for bone and ST-based registration was X (BL) = 4·6 mm, X (ST) = 4·4 mm, Y (BL) = 6·3 mm, Y (ST) = 4·7 mm, Z (BL) = 3·0 mm, Z (ST) = 3·6mm. Conclusion: Two distinct registration approaches for head-neck patient setup did not yield any significant difference in the setup margin calculation. A suitable approach for CBCT and reference CT registration technique was required for the setup margin calculation. Confusion in selecting the correct image registration procedure can result in incorrect treatment execution. The compatibility of the two registration approaches was established in this study. Image fusion was neutralised before the second match (ST) to avoid hysteresis. For setup verification using CBCT for the head and neck region, both bone and ST registration were compatible for setup verification.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Influence of monte carlo variance with fluence smoothing in VMAT treatment planning with Monaco TPSIndian Journal of Cancer, 2016
- Evaluating the accuracy of the XVI dual registration tool compared with manual soft tissue matching to localise tumour volumes for post‐prostatectomy patients receiving radiotherapyJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 2015
- Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: A planning comparisonPhysica Medica, 2014
- Dosimetric consequences of translational and rotational errors in frame-less image-guided radiosurgeryRadiation Oncology, 2012
- Analysis of inter-fraction setup errors and organ motion by daily kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography in intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancerRadiation Oncology, 2012
- Set-up errors and planning target volume margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: a clinical study of image guidance with on-line cone-beam computed tomographyInternational Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practiceThe British Journal of Radiology, 2011
- Set-up errors in radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers – Is electronic portal imaging or conebeam more accurate?Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2010
- Positioning accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in combination with a HexaPOD robot treatment tableInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2007
- Errors and margins in radiotherapySeminars in Radiation Oncology, 2004