Performance assessment of a programmable five degrees-of-freedom motion platform for quality assurance of motion management techniques in radiotherapy
- 187 Downloads
Inter-fraction and intra-fraction motion management methods are increasingly applied clinically and require the development of advanced motion platforms to facilitate testing and quality assurance program development. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a 5 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) programmable motion platform HexaMotion (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) towards clinically observed tumor motion range, velocity, acceleration and the accuracy requirements of SABR prescribed in AAPM Task Group 142. Performance specifications for the motion platform were derived from literature regarding the motion characteristics of prostate and lung tumor targets required for real time motion management. The performance of the programmable motion platform was evaluated against (1) maximum range, velocity and acceleration (5 DoF), (2) static position accuracy (5 DoF) and (3) dynamic position accuracy using patient-derived prostate and lung tumor motion traces (3 DoF). Translational motion accuracy was compared against electromagnetic transponder measurements. Rotation was benchmarked with a digital inclinometer. The static accuracy and reproducibility for translation and rotation was <0.1 mm or <0.1°, respectively. The accuracy of reproducing dynamic patient motion was <0.3 mm. The motion platform’s range met the need to reproduce clinically relevant translation and rotation ranges and its accuracy met the TG 142 requirements for SABR. The range, velocity and acceleration of the motion platform are sufficient to reproduce lung and prostate tumor motion for motion management. Programmable motion platforms are valuable tools in the investigation, quality assurance and commissioning of motion management systems in radiation oncology.
KeywordsTumor motion 5 Degrees-of-freedom motion platform Quality assurance Motion management
This work was supported by a Cancer Australia Grant 1085360 and the Australian Fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No commercial support was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Kupelian P, Willoughby T, Mahadevan A, Djemil T, Weinstein G, Jani S, Enke C, Solberg T, Flores N, Liu D, Beyer D, Levine L (2007) Multi-institutional clinical experience with the calypso system in localization and continuous, real-time monitoring of the prostate gland during external radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:1088–1098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Keall PJ, Chang M, Benedict S, Thames H, Vedam SS, Lin PS (2008) Investigating the temporal effects of respiratory-gated and intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment delivery on in vitro survival: an experimental and theoretical study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1547–1552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Keall PJ, Ng JA, Juneja P, O’Brien RT, Huang C-Y, Colvill E, Caillet V, Simpson E, Poulsen PR, Kneebone A (2016) Real-time 3D image guidance using a standard LINAC: measured motion, accuracy, and precision of the first prospective clinical trial of kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring–guided gating for prostate cancer radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 94:1015–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Malinowski K, Noel C, Lu W, Lechleiter K, Hubenschmidt J, Low D, Parikh P (2007) Development of the 4D Phantom for patient-specific, end-to-end radiation therapy QA. Medical imaging. In: International society for optics and photonics, pp 65100E–65109EGoogle Scholar
- 29.Keall PJ, Aun Ng J, O’Brien R, Colvill E, Huang C-Y, Rugaard Poulsen P, Fledelius W, Juneja P, Simpson E, Bell L, Alfieri F, Eade T, Kneebone A, Booth JT (2015) The first clinical treatment with kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM): a real-time image guidance method. Med Phy 42:354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar