Advertisement

Performance evaluation of the CyberKnife system in real-time target tracking during beam delivery using a moving phantom coupled with two-dimensional detector array

  • Bin YangEmail author
  • Tin Lok Chiu
  • Wai Kong Law
  • Hui Geng
  • Wai Wang Lam
  • Tat Ming Leung
  • Lok Hang Yiu
  • Kin Yin Cheung
  • Siu Ki Yu
Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the tracking error of the Synchrony Respiratory Tracking system by conducting beam-by-beam analyses to determine the variation in the tracking beams measured during target motion. A moving phantom of in-house design coupled with a two-dimensional (2D) detector array was used to simulate respiratory motion in the superoinferior (SI) and anteroposterior (AP) direction. A styrofoam block with four implanted fiducial markers was placed on top of the detector to enable the fiducial-based respiratory tracking. Measurements were performed with the phantom under either stationary mode or sinusoidal motion of 6-s cycle and 15/20-mm amplitude at SI and AP direction. The measurement data were saved as movie files that were used to calculate the center shift of the beam with 100-ms sampling time. The tracking accuracy of the system was defined as the targeting error, which could be tracked with probability of > 95% (Ep95). The mean ± standard deviation of Ep95 was 0.28 ± 0.08 mm under stationary condition; 0.66 ± 0.23 mm (range: 0.28–1.22 mm) under sinusoidal respiratory motion. The maximum drift of the beam center for all beam paths was 2.7 mm. The tracking accuracy of CyberKnife Synchrony system was successfully evaluated using a moving phantom and 2D detector array; the maximum tracking error was < 1.5 mm for sinusoidal motion of amplitude ≤ 20 mm.

Keywords

CyberKnife Synchrony Target-tracking accuracy 2D detector array 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Statement of human and animal rights

This study included no animals or humans.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not necessary, because no human subjects were involved in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Solda F, Lodge M, Ashley S, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of primary non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and comparison with a surgical cohort. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ryu SI, Chang SD, Kim DH, et al. Image-guided hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery to spinal lesions. Neurosurg. 2001;49(4):838–46.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerszten PC, Ozhasoglu C, Burton SA, et al. CyberKnife frameless stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal lesions: clinical experience in 125 cases. Neurosurg. 2004;55(1):89–98.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Voort. van Zyp NC, Prevost JB, Hoogeman MS, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy with real-time tumor tracking for non-small cell lung cancer: clinical outcome. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91(3):296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Unger K, Ju A, Oermann E, et al. CyberKnife for hilar lung tumors: report of clinical response and toxicity. J Hematol Oncol. 2010;3:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pepin EW, Wu H, Zhang Y, et al. Correlation and prediction uncertainties in the cyberknife synchrony respiratory tracking system. Med Phys. 2011;38:4036–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter JD, Wong R, Swaminath A, et al. Accuracy of robotic radiosurgical liver treatment throughout the respiratory cycle. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:916–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ho AK, Fu D, Cotrutz C, et al. A study of the accuracy of cyberknife spinal radiosurgery using skeletal structure tracking. Neurosurg. 2007;60(2 Suppl 1):ONS147–156.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu C, Main W, Taylor D, Kuduvalli G, Apuzzo ML, Alder JR Jr. An anthropomorphic phantom study of the accuracy of Cyberknife spinal radiosurgery. Neurosurg. 2004;55(5):1138–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy MJ, Cox RS. The accuracy of dose localization for an image-guided frameless radiosurgery system. Med Phys. 1996;23(12):2043–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiomi H, Inoue T, Nakamura S. Quality assurance for an image-guided frameless radiosurgery system using radiochromic film. Radiat Med. 2000;18(2):107–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dieterich S, Cavedon C, Chuang CF, Cohen AB, Garrett JA, Lee CL, Lowenstein JR, d’Souza MF, Taylor DD Jr, Wu X, Yu C. Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):2914–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seppenwoolde Y, Berbeco RI, Nishioka S, Shirato H, Heijmen B. Accuracy of tumor motion compensation algorithm from a robotic respiratory tracking system: a simulation study. Med Phys. 2007;34(7):2774–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoogeman M, Prevost JB, Nuyttens J, Poll J, Levendaq P, Heijmen B. Clinical accuracy of the respiratory tumor tracking system of the cyberknife: assessment by analysis of log files. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(1):297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nioutsikou E, Seppenwoolde Y, Symonds-Tayler JR, Heijmen B, Evans P, Webb S. Dosimetric investigation of lung tumor motion compensation with a robotic respiratory tracking system: an experimental study. Med Phys. 2008;35(4):1232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan MK, Kwong DL, Ng SC, Tong AS, Tam EK. Accuracy and sensitivity of four-dimensional dose calculation to systematic motion variability in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(6):3992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Inoue M, Shiomi H, Iwata H, et al. Development of system using beam’s eye view images to measure respiratory motion tracking errors in image-guided robotic radiosurgery system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(1):100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sumida I, Shiomi H, Higashinaka N, Murashima Y, Miyamoto Y, Yamazaki H, Mabuchi N, Tsuda E, Ogawa K. Evaluation of tracking accuracy of the CyberKnife system using a webcam and printed calibrated grid. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Mar 8;17(2):74–84.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akino Y, Sumida I, Shiomi H, Higashinaka N, Murashima Y, Hayashida M, Mabuchi N, Ogawa K. Evaluation of the accuracy of the CyberKnife Synchrony Respiratory™ Tracking System using a plastic scintillator. Med Phys. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13028.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheung K, Lam W, Geng H, Wong R, Ho R, Kong C, Wu P, Yu S. MO-F213AB-05: commissioning of gated RapidArc radiotherapy for treatment of moving targets. Med Phys. 2012;39:3872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kilby W, Dooley JR, Kuduvalli G, Sayeh S, Maurer CR Jr. The CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System in 2010. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2010;9(5):433–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jung J, Song SY, Yoon SM, et al. Verification of accuracy of CyberKnife tumor-tracking radiation therapy using patient-specific lung phantoms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92:745–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakayama M, Nishimura H, Mayahara H, Nakamura M, Uehara K, Tsudou S, Harada A, Akasaka H, Sasaki R. Clinical log data analysis for assessing the accuracy of the CyberKnife fiducial-free lung tumor tracking system. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018;8(2):e63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang B, Geng H, Ding Y, Kong CW, Cheung CW, Chiu TL, Lam WW, Cheung KY, Yu SK. Development of a novel methodology for QA of respiratory gated and VMAT beam delivery using Octavius 4D phantom. Med Dosim. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2018.02.008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Physics and Research DepartmentHong Kong Sanatorium & HospitalHong KongChina
  2. 2.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentHong Kong Sanatorium & HospitalHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations