Purpose The purpose of the study was to investigate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease setup deviations for tangential and locoregional breast cancer patients compared to conventional laser‐based setup (LBS). Materials and Methods Both tangential (63 patients) and locoregional (76 patients) breast cancer patients were enrolled in this study. For LBS, the patients were positioned by aligning skin markers to the room lasers. For the surface based setup (SBS), an optical surface scanning system was used for daily setup using both single and three camera systems. To compare the two setup methods, the patient position was evaluated using verification imaging (field images or orthogonal images). Results For both tangential and locoregional treatments, SBS decreased the setup deviation significantly compared to LBS (P < 0.01). For patients receiving tangential treatment, 95% of the treatment sessions were within the clinical tolerance of ≤ 4 mm in any direction (lateral, longitudinal or vertical) using SBS, compared to 84% for LBS. Corresponding values for patients receiving locoregional treatment were 70% and 54% for SBS and LBS, respectively. No significant difference was observed comparing the setup result using a single camera system or a three camera system. Conclusions Conventional laser‐based setup can with advantage be replaced by surface based setup. Daily SGRT improves patient setup without additional imaging dose to breast cancer patients regardless if a single or three camera system was used.

Background: The purpose was to evaluate the dosimetric effects in prostate cancer treatment caused by anatomical changes occurring during the time frame of adaptive replanning in a magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-linac) workflow. Methods: Two MR images (MR1 and MR2) were acquired with 30 min apart for each of the 35 patients enrolled in this study. The clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated based on MR1. Using a synthetic CT (sCT), ultra-hypofractionated VMAT treatment plans were created for MR1, with three different planning target volume (PTV) margins of 7 mm, 5 mm and 3 mm. The three treatment plans of MR1, were recalculated onto MR2 using its corresponding sCT. The dose distribution of MR2 represented delivered dose to the patient after 30 min of adaptive replanning, omitting motion correction before beam on. MR2 was registered to MR1, using deformable registration. Using the inverse deformation, the structures of MR1 was deformed to fit MR2 and anatomical changes were quantified. For dose distribution comparison the dose distribution of MR2 was warped to the geometry MR1. Results: The mean center of mass vector offset for the CTV was 1.92 mm [0.13-9.79 mm]. Bladder volume increase ranged from 12.4 to 133.0% and rectum volume difference varied between −10.9 and 38.8%. Using the conventional 7 mm planning target volume (PTV) margin the dose reduction to the CTV was 1.1%. Corresponding values for 5 mm and 3 mm PTV margin were 2.0% and 4.2% respectively. The dose to the PTV and OARs also decreased from D1 to D2, for all PTV margins evaluated. Statistically significant difference was found for CTV D min between D1 and D2 for the 3 mm PTV margin (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A target underdosage caused by anatomical changes occurring during the reported time frame for adaptive replanning MR-linac workflows was found. Volume changes in both bladder and rectum caused large prostate displacements. This indicates the importance of thorough position verification before treatment delivery and that the workflow needs to speed up before introducing margin reduction.

Highlights 1 min time reduction for prostate patient setup using SGRT. Accurate initial positioning for deep-seated target with surface imaging. Improved workflow using intuitive color map for setup guidance.

No abstract

No abstract