Display options
Share it on

Radiol Bras. 2016 Mar-Apr;49(2):98-103. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0053.

Analysis of translational errors in frame-based and frameless cranial radiosurgery using an anthropomorphic phantom.

Radiologia brasileira

Taynná Vernalha Rocha Almeida, Arno Lotar Cordova Junior, Pedro Argolo Piedade, Cintia Mara da Silva, Priscila Marins, Cristiane Maria Almeida, Gabriela R Baseggio Brincas, Danyel Scheidegger Soboll

Affiliations

  1. MSc, Radiologic Technologist, Doctoral Student at the Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
  2. MD, Radiotherapist at the Centro de Radioterapia São Sebastião, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
  3. MD, Physicist at the Centro de Radioterapia São Sebastião, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
  4. Radiology Technologist, Dosimetrist at the Centro de Radioterapia São Sebastião, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
  5. Radiology Technologist, Masters Student at the Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
  6. MD, Imaging Physicist at the Centro de Diagnóstico Médico Imagem, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
  7. PhD, Professor in the Physics Department, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

PMID: 27141132 PMCID: PMC4851478 DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0053

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three-dimensional translational setup errors and residual errors in image-guided radiosurgery, comparing frameless and frame-based techniques, using an anthropomorphic phantom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We initially used specific phantoms for the calibration and quality control of the image-guided system. For the hidden target test, we used an Alderson Radiation Therapy (ART)-210 anthropomorphic head phantom, into which we inserted four 5mm metal balls to simulate target treatment volumes. Computed tomography images were the taken with the head phantom properly positioned for frameless and frame-based radiosurgery.

RESULTS: For the frameless technique, the mean error magnitude was 0.22 ± 0.04 mm for setup errors and 0.14 ± 0.02 mm for residual errors, the combined uncertainty being 0.28 mm and 0.16 mm, respectively. For the frame-based technique, the mean error magnitude was 0.73 ± 0.14 mm for setup errors and 0.31 ± 0.04 mm for residual errors, the combined uncertainty being 1.15 mm and 0.63 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The mean values, standard deviations, and combined uncertainties showed no evidence of a significant differences between the two techniques when the head phantom ART-210 was used.

Keywords: Frame cranial radiosurgery; Frameless cranial radiosurgery; IGRT; Phantoms, imaging; Residual errors; Setup errors

References

  1. Radiother Oncol. 2010 Apr;95(1):109-15 - PubMed
  2. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Apr 1;55(5):1400-8 - PubMed
  3. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1627-35 - PubMed
  4. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983 Sep;46(9):797-803 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 15;88(4):899-906 - PubMed
  6. Front Oncol. 2013 May 17;3:121 - PubMed
  7. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jul 1;74(3):913-9 - PubMed
  8. Cancer Radiother. 2013 Nov;17(7):664-7 - PubMed
  9. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Sep 1;84(1):274-82 - PubMed
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Oct 1;75(2):549-57 - PubMed
  11. J Neurooncol. 2013 May;113(1):93-9 - PubMed
  12. Z Med Phys. 2014 May;24(2):112-22 - PubMed
  13. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jan 7;55(1):1-10 - PubMed

Publication Types