A three-dimensional (3D)-printed customized bolus (3D bolus) can be used for radiotherapy application to irregular surfaces. However, bolus fabrication based on computed tomography (CT) scans is complicated and also delivers unwanted irradiation. Consequently, we fabricated a bolus using a 3D scanner and evaluated its efficacy. The head of an Alderson Rando phantom was scanned with a 3D scanner. The 3D surface data were exported and reconstructed with Geomagic Design X software. A 3D bolus of 5-mm thickness designed to fit onto the nose was printed with the use of rubber-like printing material, and a radiotherapy plan was developed. We successfully fabricated the customized 3D bolus, and further, a CT simulation indicated an acceptable fit of the 3D bolus to the nose. There was no air gap between the bolus and the phantom surface. The percent depth dose (PDD) curve of the phantom with the 3D bolus showed an enhanced surface dose when compared with that of the phantom without the bolus. The PDD of the 3D bolus was comparable with that of a commercial superflab bolus. The radiotherapy plan considering the 3D bolus showed improved target coverage when compared with that without the bolus. Thus, we successfully fabricated a customized 3D bolus for an irregular surface using a 3D scanner instead of a CT scanner.

This study evaluated the feasibility of utilizing a 3D-printed anthropomorphic patient-specific head phantom for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Contoured left and right head phantoms were converted from DICOM to STL format. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) was used to construct an anthropomorphic patient-specific head phantom with a 3D printer. An established QA technique and the patient-specific head phantom were used to compare the calculated and measured doses. When the established technique was used to compare the calculated and measured doses, the gamma passing rate for γ ≤ 1 was 97.28%, while the gamma failure rate for γ > 1 was 2.72%. When the 3D-printed patient-specific head phantom was used, the gamma passing rate for γ ≤ 1 was 95.97%, and the gamma failure rate for γ > 1 was 4.03%. The 3D printed patient-specific head phantom was concluded to be highly feasible for patient-specific QA prior to complicated radiotherapy procedures such as IMRT.

This study evaluated the setup uncertainties for brain sites when using BrainLAB’s ExacTrac X-ray 6D system for daily pretreatment to determine the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Between August 2012 and April 2015, 28 patients with brain tumors were treated by daily image-guided radiotherapy using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guidance system of the Novalis-Tx linear accelerator. DUONTM (Orfit Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) masks were used to fix the head. The radiotherapy was fractionated into 27–33 treatments. In total, 844 image verifications were performed for 28 patients and used for the analysis. The setup corrections along with the systematic and random errors were analyzed for six degrees of freedom in the translational (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and rotational (pitch, roll, and yaw) dimensions. Optimal PTV margins were calculated based on van Herk et al.’s [margin recipe = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ - 3 mm] and Stroom et al.’s [margin recipe = 2∑ + 0.7σ] formulas. The systematic errors (∑) were 0.72, 1.57, and 0.97 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical translational dimensions, respectively, and 0.72°, 0.87°, and 0.83° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. The random errors (σ) were 0.31, 0.46, and 0.54 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical rotational dimensions, respectively, and 0.28°, 0.24°, and 0.31° in the pitch, roll, and yaw rotational dimensions, respectively. According to van Herk et al.’s and Stroom et al.’s recipes, the recommended lateral PTV margins were 0.97 and 1.66 mm, respectively; the longitudinal margins were 1.26 and 3.47 mm, respectively; and the vertical margins were 0.21 and 2.31 mm, respectively. Therefore, daily setup verifications using the BrainLAB ExacTrac 6D image guide system are very useful for evaluating the setup uncertainties and determining the setup margin.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6 degree-of-freedom (6D) ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) used with the imaging guidance system Novalis Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. We included 107 consecutive patients for whom white stereotactic head frame masks (R408; Clarity Medical Products, Newark, OH) were used to fix the head during intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery, between August 2012 and July 2016. The patients were immobilized in the same state for both the verification image using 6D ExacTrac and online 3D CBCT. In addition, after radiation treatment, registration between the computed tomography simulation images and the CBCT images was performed with offline 6D fusion in an offline review. The root-mean-square of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and CBCT was <1.01 mm for online matching and <1.10 mm for offline matching. Furthermore, the root-mean-square of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and the CBCT were <0.82° for online matching and <0.95° for offline matching. It was concluded that while the discrepancies in residual setup errors between the ExacTrac 6D X-ray and the CBCT were minor, they should not be ignored.

Respiratory-gated radiotherapy is one of the most effective approaches to minimise radiation dose delivery to normal tissue and maximise delivery to tumours under patient’s motion caused by respiration. We propose a respiration guiding system based on real-time position management with suitable gating window for respiratory-gated radiotherapy applied to liver cancer. Between August 2016 and February 2018, 52 patients with liver cancer received training in real-time position management and respiration guiding. Respiration signals were statistically analysed during unguided respiration and when applying the respiration guiding system. Phases of 30–60% and 30–70% retrieved the lowest respiration variability among patients, and 47 patients exhibited significant differences in terms of respiration reproducibility between unguided and guided respiration. The results suggest that either of these phases can establish suitable windows for gated radiotherapy applied to liver cancer, especially regarding respiration reproducibility.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to treat spinal metastases. To achieve the highest steep dose gradients and conformal dose distributions of target tumors, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques are essential to spine radiosurgery. The purpose of the study was to qualitatively compare IMRT and VMAT techniques with International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) contoured consensus guidelines for target volume definition. Planning target volume (PTV) was categorized as TB, TBPT and TST depending on sectors involved; TB (vertebral body only), TBPT (vertebral body+ pedicle+transverse process), and TST (spinous process+transverse process). Three patients treated for spinal tumor in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar region were selected. Each tumor was contoured by the definition from the ISRC guideline. Maximum spinal cord dose were 12.46 Gy, 12.17 Gy and 11.36 Gy for TB, TBPT and TST sites, and 11.81 Gy, 12.19 Gy and 11.99 Gy for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. Average fall-off dose distance from 90% to 50% isodose line for TB, TBPT, and TST sites were 3.5 mm, 3.3 mm and 3.9 mm and 3.7 mm, 3.7 mm and 3.3 mm for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. For the most complicated target TBPT sites in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, the conformity index of the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 is 0.621, 0.761 and 0.817 and 0.755, 0.796 and 0.824 for rDHI. Both IMRT and VMAT techniques delivered high conformal dose distributions in spine stereotactic radiosurgery. However, if the target volume includes the vertebral body, pedicle, and transverse process, IMRT planning resulted in insufficient conformity index, compared to VMAT planning. Nevertheless, IMRT technique was more effective in reducing the maximum spinal cord dose compared to RA1 and RA2 techniques at most sites.

The objective of this study was to analyze the difference in residual setup errors between 6D ExacTrac and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image-guided systems in spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We investigated 76 patients with spinal tumors who received SBRT using Novalis Tx at our institution between January 2013 and September 2020. A Vac-lok (EZ-FIX®, Arlico Medical Company, South Korea) fixture and an assistive device, based on the region involved, were used to immobilize patients and to increase the inter-fractional setup reproducibility. The difference in the root mean square (RMS) between the 6D ExacTrac and 3D CBCT was -0.75 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.16 mm, and -0.03°; the RMS value was 1.31 mm, 1.06 mm, 0.87 mm, and 0.64°; and the standard deviation was 0.80 mm, 0.72 mm, 0.62 mm, and 0.44° for lateral, longitudinal, vertical, and yaw directions, respectively. The difference in the average RMS between ExacTrac and CBCT was <1.03 mm in the translation direction and <0.47° in the rotational direction; the results were statistically significant in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, but not in the yaw direction. Thus, it is necessary to verify the ExacTrac image according to the CBCT image.

No abstract