author_facet Sharma, S.
Sharma, S.
author Sharma, S.
spellingShingle Sharma, S.
Journal of Global Oncology
Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
Oncology
Cancer Research
author_sort sharma, s.
spelling Sharma, S. 2378-9506 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Cancer Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jgo.18.66600 <jats:p> Background: Radiosurgery has been an integral component in the management of intracranial tumors. It involves the administration of a high dose to the tumor. An essential aspect of this kind of treatment delivery is accurate localization of the tumor target that is precisely reproducible during treatment. To achieve this, the methods of positioning and immobilization of the patient play a critical role. Conventionally, the patient has been immobilized with invasive head frame and the location of internal anatomy deduced by external coordinates. This method has some drawbacks. - It works on the assumption that the external coordinates represent the isocentre location correctly. - It depends on the spatial relationships between the frame and the skull. Slippage and deformity of the frame, although rare, can cause an error in positioning. - From the patient's perspective, the placement of the frame is a source of discomfort. It also puts them at risk for bleeding and infection. Frameless SRS has come into use in recent times. This is a noninvasive method. However, giving up the use of an invasive head frame leads to increased intrafraction motion. To overcome this, we require constant verification of the patient's positioning at every step of the treatment. Aim: The objective of this study is to compare the precision and accuracy between Brainlab ExacTrac imaging and CBCT and evaluate the intrafraction motion of patient undergoing intracranial SRT. Methods: For this study we included 10 patients with intracranial tumors who are eligible to undergo SRS. A frameless stereotactic head frame mask was prepared to immobilize the head during SRS. During treatment the patients were immobilized with the same frame and the 6D positional accuracy was checked for every single field before the treatment execution by taking verification image using 6D ExacTrac and Onboard Imagers. The 6D ExacTrac tolerance were set to rotation &lt; 1.00 and translational shift &lt; 0.7 mm. We make sure of intrafarction movement by taking frequent ExacTrac images during the treatment of every 30 s. After the treatment the registration between the planning CT image and CBCT image taken before treatment were cross verified 6 dimensionally using offline review. The difference in shift between ExacTrac and CBCT are evaluated by means of RMS. Results: The RMS of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT was &lt; 1.0 for online matching and &lt; 1.10 for offline matching. Furthermore, the RMS of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT were &lt; 0.81 for online matching and &lt; 0.96 for offline matching. Conclusion: It is concluded that the discrepancies in residual set-up error between the ExacTrac 6D x-ray and the CBCT were minor. ExacTrac 6D imaging provides additional advantage of patient intrafraction movement control by means of imaging during treatment. </jats:p> Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery Journal of Global Oncology
doi_str_mv 10.1200/jgo.18.66600
facet_avail Online
Free
finc_class_facet Medizin
format ElectronicArticle
fullrecord blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qZ28uMTguNjY2MDA
id ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qZ28uMTguNjY2MDA
institution DE-105
DE-14
DE-Ch1
DE-L229
DE-D275
DE-Bn3
DE-Brt1
DE-Zwi2
DE-D161
DE-Gla1
DE-Zi4
DE-15
DE-Pl11
DE-Rs1
imprint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2018
imprint_str_mv American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2018
issn 2378-9506
issn_str_mv 2378-9506
language English
mega_collection American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef)
match_str sharma2018intrafractionverificationusingexactrac6dimagingforframelesscranialradiosurgery
publishDateSort 2018
publisher American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
recordtype ai
record_format ai
series Journal of Global Oncology
source_id 49
title Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_unstemmed Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_full Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_fullStr Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_full_unstemmed Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_short Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_sort intrafraction verification using exactrac 6d imaging for frameless cranial radiosurgery
topic Oncology
Cancer Research
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jgo.18.66600
publishDate 2018
physical 91s-91s
description <jats:p> Background: Radiosurgery has been an integral component in the management of intracranial tumors. It involves the administration of a high dose to the tumor. An essential aspect of this kind of treatment delivery is accurate localization of the tumor target that is precisely reproducible during treatment. To achieve this, the methods of positioning and immobilization of the patient play a critical role. Conventionally, the patient has been immobilized with invasive head frame and the location of internal anatomy deduced by external coordinates. This method has some drawbacks. - It works on the assumption that the external coordinates represent the isocentre location correctly. - It depends on the spatial relationships between the frame and the skull. Slippage and deformity of the frame, although rare, can cause an error in positioning. - From the patient's perspective, the placement of the frame is a source of discomfort. It also puts them at risk for bleeding and infection. Frameless SRS has come into use in recent times. This is a noninvasive method. However, giving up the use of an invasive head frame leads to increased intrafraction motion. To overcome this, we require constant verification of the patient's positioning at every step of the treatment. Aim: The objective of this study is to compare the precision and accuracy between Brainlab ExacTrac imaging and CBCT and evaluate the intrafraction motion of patient undergoing intracranial SRT. Methods: For this study we included 10 patients with intracranial tumors who are eligible to undergo SRS. A frameless stereotactic head frame mask was prepared to immobilize the head during SRS. During treatment the patients were immobilized with the same frame and the 6D positional accuracy was checked for every single field before the treatment execution by taking verification image using 6D ExacTrac and Onboard Imagers. The 6D ExacTrac tolerance were set to rotation &lt; 1.00 and translational shift &lt; 0.7 mm. We make sure of intrafarction movement by taking frequent ExacTrac images during the treatment of every 30 s. After the treatment the registration between the planning CT image and CBCT image taken before treatment were cross verified 6 dimensionally using offline review. The difference in shift between ExacTrac and CBCT are evaluated by means of RMS. Results: The RMS of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT was &lt; 1.0 for online matching and &lt; 1.10 for offline matching. Furthermore, the RMS of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT were &lt; 0.81 for online matching and &lt; 0.96 for offline matching. Conclusion: It is concluded that the discrepancies in residual set-up error between the ExacTrac 6D x-ray and the CBCT were minor. ExacTrac 6D imaging provides additional advantage of patient intrafraction movement control by means of imaging during treatment. </jats:p>
container_issue Supplement 2
container_start_page 0
container_title Journal of Global Oncology
container_volume 4
format_de105 Article, E-Article
format_de14 Article, E-Article
format_de15 Article, E-Article
format_de520 Article, E-Article
format_de540 Article, E-Article
format_dech1 Article, E-Article
format_ded117 Article, E-Article
format_degla1 E-Article
format_del152 Buch
format_del189 Article, E-Article
format_dezi4 Article
format_dezwi2 Article, E-Article
format_finc Article, E-Article
format_nrw Article, E-Article
_version_ 1792327922905776130
geogr_code not assigned
last_indexed 2024-03-01T12:44:29.277Z
geogr_code_person not assigned
openURL url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Intrafraction+Verification+Using+ExacTrac+6D+Imaging+for+Frameless+Cranial+Radiosurgery&rft.date=2018-10-01&genre=article&issn=2378-9506&volume=4&issue=Supplement+2&pages=91s-91s&jtitle=Journal+of+Global+Oncology&atitle=Intrafraction+Verification+Using+ExacTrac+6D+Imaging+for+Frameless+Cranial+Radiosurgery&aulast=Sharma&aufirst=S.&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1200%2Fjgo.18.66600&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng
SOLR
_version_ 1792327922905776130
author Sharma, S.
author_facet Sharma, S., Sharma, S.
author_sort sharma, s.
container_issue Supplement 2
container_start_page 0
container_title Journal of Global Oncology
container_volume 4
description <jats:p> Background: Radiosurgery has been an integral component in the management of intracranial tumors. It involves the administration of a high dose to the tumor. An essential aspect of this kind of treatment delivery is accurate localization of the tumor target that is precisely reproducible during treatment. To achieve this, the methods of positioning and immobilization of the patient play a critical role. Conventionally, the patient has been immobilized with invasive head frame and the location of internal anatomy deduced by external coordinates. This method has some drawbacks. - It works on the assumption that the external coordinates represent the isocentre location correctly. - It depends on the spatial relationships between the frame and the skull. Slippage and deformity of the frame, although rare, can cause an error in positioning. - From the patient's perspective, the placement of the frame is a source of discomfort. It also puts them at risk for bleeding and infection. Frameless SRS has come into use in recent times. This is a noninvasive method. However, giving up the use of an invasive head frame leads to increased intrafraction motion. To overcome this, we require constant verification of the patient's positioning at every step of the treatment. Aim: The objective of this study is to compare the precision and accuracy between Brainlab ExacTrac imaging and CBCT and evaluate the intrafraction motion of patient undergoing intracranial SRT. Methods: For this study we included 10 patients with intracranial tumors who are eligible to undergo SRS. A frameless stereotactic head frame mask was prepared to immobilize the head during SRS. During treatment the patients were immobilized with the same frame and the 6D positional accuracy was checked for every single field before the treatment execution by taking verification image using 6D ExacTrac and Onboard Imagers. The 6D ExacTrac tolerance were set to rotation &lt; 1.00 and translational shift &lt; 0.7 mm. We make sure of intrafarction movement by taking frequent ExacTrac images during the treatment of every 30 s. After the treatment the registration between the planning CT image and CBCT image taken before treatment were cross verified 6 dimensionally using offline review. The difference in shift between ExacTrac and CBCT are evaluated by means of RMS. Results: The RMS of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT was &lt; 1.0 for online matching and &lt; 1.10 for offline matching. Furthermore, the RMS of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT were &lt; 0.81 for online matching and &lt; 0.96 for offline matching. Conclusion: It is concluded that the discrepancies in residual set-up error between the ExacTrac 6D x-ray and the CBCT were minor. ExacTrac 6D imaging provides additional advantage of patient intrafraction movement control by means of imaging during treatment. </jats:p>
doi_str_mv 10.1200/jgo.18.66600
facet_avail Online, Free
finc_class_facet Medizin
format ElectronicArticle
format_de105 Article, E-Article
format_de14 Article, E-Article
format_de15 Article, E-Article
format_de520 Article, E-Article
format_de540 Article, E-Article
format_dech1 Article, E-Article
format_ded117 Article, E-Article
format_degla1 E-Article
format_del152 Buch
format_del189 Article, E-Article
format_dezi4 Article
format_dezwi2 Article, E-Article
format_finc Article, E-Article
format_nrw Article, E-Article
geogr_code not assigned
geogr_code_person not assigned
id ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qZ28uMTguNjY2MDA
imprint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2018
imprint_str_mv American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2018
institution DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-Zwi2, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1
issn 2378-9506
issn_str_mv 2378-9506
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-01T12:44:29.277Z
match_str sharma2018intrafractionverificationusingexactrac6dimagingforframelesscranialradiosurgery
mega_collection American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef)
physical 91s-91s
publishDate 2018
publishDateSort 2018
publisher American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
record_format ai
recordtype ai
series Journal of Global Oncology
source_id 49
spelling Sharma, S. 2378-9506 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Cancer Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jgo.18.66600 <jats:p> Background: Radiosurgery has been an integral component in the management of intracranial tumors. It involves the administration of a high dose to the tumor. An essential aspect of this kind of treatment delivery is accurate localization of the tumor target that is precisely reproducible during treatment. To achieve this, the methods of positioning and immobilization of the patient play a critical role. Conventionally, the patient has been immobilized with invasive head frame and the location of internal anatomy deduced by external coordinates. This method has some drawbacks. - It works on the assumption that the external coordinates represent the isocentre location correctly. - It depends on the spatial relationships between the frame and the skull. Slippage and deformity of the frame, although rare, can cause an error in positioning. - From the patient's perspective, the placement of the frame is a source of discomfort. It also puts them at risk for bleeding and infection. Frameless SRS has come into use in recent times. This is a noninvasive method. However, giving up the use of an invasive head frame leads to increased intrafraction motion. To overcome this, we require constant verification of the patient's positioning at every step of the treatment. Aim: The objective of this study is to compare the precision and accuracy between Brainlab ExacTrac imaging and CBCT and evaluate the intrafraction motion of patient undergoing intracranial SRT. Methods: For this study we included 10 patients with intracranial tumors who are eligible to undergo SRS. A frameless stereotactic head frame mask was prepared to immobilize the head during SRS. During treatment the patients were immobilized with the same frame and the 6D positional accuracy was checked for every single field before the treatment execution by taking verification image using 6D ExacTrac and Onboard Imagers. The 6D ExacTrac tolerance were set to rotation &lt; 1.00 and translational shift &lt; 0.7 mm. We make sure of intrafarction movement by taking frequent ExacTrac images during the treatment of every 30 s. After the treatment the registration between the planning CT image and CBCT image taken before treatment were cross verified 6 dimensionally using offline review. The difference in shift between ExacTrac and CBCT are evaluated by means of RMS. Results: The RMS of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT was &lt; 1.0 for online matching and &lt; 1.10 for offline matching. Furthermore, the RMS of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac System and CBCT were &lt; 0.81 for online matching and &lt; 0.96 for offline matching. Conclusion: It is concluded that the discrepancies in residual set-up error between the ExacTrac 6D x-ray and the CBCT were minor. ExacTrac 6D imaging provides additional advantage of patient intrafraction movement control by means of imaging during treatment. </jats:p> Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery Journal of Global Oncology
spellingShingle Sharma, S., Journal of Global Oncology, Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery, Oncology, Cancer Research
title Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_full Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_fullStr Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_full_unstemmed Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_short Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
title_sort intrafraction verification using exactrac 6d imaging for frameless cranial radiosurgery
title_unstemmed Intrafraction Verification Using ExacTrac 6D Imaging for Frameless Cranial Radiosurgery
topic Oncology, Cancer Research
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jgo.18.66600