Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the accuracy of truebeam intrafraction motion review (IMR) system for prostate treatment guidance

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intrafraction motion review (IMR), a real-time 2D, motion management feature of the Varian Truebeam™ incorporates triggered imaging, automatic fiducial marker detection and automatic beam hold. With the increasing adoption of high dose per fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) this system provides a potential means to ensure treatment accuracy. The goal of this study was therefore to investigate and quantify key performance characteristics of IMR for prostate treatment guidance. Phantom experiments were performed with a custom Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Inc (CIRS) pelvis phantom with implanted gold seeds and the Hexamotion™ 5D motion platform. The system accuracy was assessed statically and under typical prostate motion trajectories. The IMR functionality and marker detectability was tested under different anatomical conditions and with different imaging acquisition modes. Imaging dose for triggered imaging modes was determined using an ionisation chamber based on IPEMB dose calibration protocol for kV energies. For zero displacement, the IMR demonstrated submillimeter agreement with the known position. Similarly, dynamic motion differences between the IMR reported position and 2D trajectory displacement were within 1 mm. Static displacement in the anterior direction was reported by IMR as sinusoidal motion on the x-axis (kV angle). The 2D nature of IMR limits the ability to detect motion out of the plane of the kV image detector. Using typical clinical imaging settings, imaging dose determined at the patient surface was 2.58 mGy/frame and the corresponding IMR displayed dose was 2.63 mGy/frame. The methodology used was able to quantify the accuracy of the IMR system. The IMR was able to accurately and consistently report fiducial positions within the limitations inherent of a 2D system. IMR is fully integrated with the Truebeam system with an easy to use and efficient workflow and is clinically beneficial especially within the context of SBRT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olsen J, Parikh PJ, Watts M, Noel CE, Baker KW, Lakshmi S, Michalski JM (2012) Comparsion of dose decrement from intrafraction motion for prone and supine prostate radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 104(2):199–204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque J (2000) The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47(4):1121–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poulsen PR, Cho B, Sawant A, Keall PJ (2010) Implementation of a new method for dynamic multileaf collimator tracking of prostate motion in arc radiotherapy using a single KV imager. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3):914–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li JS, Lin M-H, Buyyounouski MK, Horwitz EM, Ma CM (2013) Reduction of prostate intrafractional motion from shortening the treatment time. Phys Med Biol 58(14):4921–4932

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Baler M, Behrens CF (2016) Determining intrafractional prostate motion using four dimensional ultrasound system. BioMed Central Cancer 16:484

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schlosser J, Salisbury K, Hristov D (2012) Online image-based monitoring of soft-tissue displacements for radiation therapy of the prostate. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 83(5):1633–1640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghilezan MJ, Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Van Herk M, Shetty A, Sharpe MB, Jafri SZ, Vicini FA, Matter RC, Brabbins DS, Martinez AA (2005) Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62(2):406–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balter JM, Wright JN, Newell LJ, Friemel B, Dimmer S, Cheng Y, Wong J, Vertatschitsch E, Mate TP (2005) Accuracy of a wireless localization system for radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(3):933–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cho B, Poulsen PR, Sloutsky A, Sawant A, Keal PJ (2009) First demonstration of combined kV/MV image-guided real time DMLC target tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(3):859–867

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunt MA, Sonnick M, Pham H, Regmi R, Xiong J-P, Morf D, Mageras GS, Zelefsky M, Zhang P (2016) Simultaneous MV-kV imaging for intrafractional motion management during volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17(2):473–486

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ng JA, Booth JT, Poulsen PR, Fledelius W, Worm ES, Eade T, Hegi F, Kneebone A, Kuncic Z, Keall PJ (2012) Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring for prostate intensity modulated arc therapy: first clinical results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(5):e655–e661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.07.2367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang E, Dong L, Chandra A, Kuban DA, Rosen II, Evans A, Pollack A (2002) Intrafraction prostate motion during IMRT for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53(2):261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02738-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Timischl F (2014) The contrast-to-noise ratio for image quailty evaluation in scanning electron microscopy. J Scan Microsc 37:54–62

    Google Scholar 

  14. Crocker JK, Ng JA, Keall PJ, Booth JT (2012) Measurement of patient imaging dose for real-time kilovoltage x-ray intrafraction tumour position monitoring in prostate patients. Phys Med Biol 57(10):2969–2980

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Legge K, Greer PB, Keall PJ, Booth JT, Arumugam S, Moodie T, Nguyen DT, Martin J, O’Connor DJ, Lehmannn J (2017) Technical note: TROG 15.01 SPARK trial multi-institutional imaging dose measurement. J Appl Clin Med Phy 18(5):358–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Klevenhagen S, Aukett R, Harrison R, Moretti C, Nahum A, Rosser K (1996) The IPEMB code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for x-rays below 300 kV generating potential (0.035 mm Al - 4 mm Cu HVL; 10 - 300 kV generating potential). Phys Med Biol 41(12):2605–2625

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Keall PJ, Nguyen DT, O'Brien R, Caillet V, Hewson E, Poulsen PR, Bromley R, Bell L, Eade T, Kneebone A, Martin J, Booth JT (2018) The first clinical implementation of real-time image-guided adaptive radiotherapy using a standard linear accelerator. Radiother Oncol 127(1):6–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported and funded by a research Grant from Varian Medical System.

Funding

This study was funded by the Varian Medical systems (Research and Collaboration Approval)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Guneet Kaur, Joerg Lehmann, Peter Greer & John Simpson

  2. School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Faculty of Science and IT, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Joerg Lehmann, Peter Greer & John Simpson

  3. Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Joerg Lehmann

Authors
  1. Guneet Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joerg Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Greer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Simpson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article dose not contains any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Any patient data set was generated in routine clinical treatment and was de-identified for this purpose. Ethics approval was given by HREC for the Prometheus trial.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaur, G., Lehmann, J., Greer, P. et al. Assessment of the accuracy of truebeam intrafraction motion review (IMR) system for prostate treatment guidance. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42, 585–598 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00760-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00760-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation