1,031
Views
43
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Dynamic MLC tracking of moving targets with a single kV imager for 3D conformal and IMRT treatments

, , , &
Pages 1092-1100 | Received 19 May 2010, Accepted 28 May 2010, Published online: 13 Sep 2010

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic showing the gantry angles for the five fields (F1-F5), the 120° pre-treatment gantry rotation, and the 72° inter-field gantry rotations. Fluoroscopic kV images were acquired during the entire procedure and used for DMLC tracking of the moving phantom.

Figure 1. Schematic showing the gantry angles for the five fields (F1-F5), the 120° pre-treatment gantry rotation, and the 72° inter-field gantry rotations. Fluoroscopic kV images were acquired during the entire procedure and used for DMLC tracking of the moving phantom.

Figure 2. Example of data from a typical tracking experiment for a lung tumor trajectory. From top to bottom the curves show the following as function of time: gantry angle, beam-on status, and requested MLC aperture center position perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaf motion direction. All data were extracted from Dynalog files recorded during the experiment.

Figure 2. Example of data from a typical tracking experiment for a lung tumor trajectory. From top to bottom the curves show the following as function of time: gantry angle, beam-on status, and requested MLC aperture center position perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaf motion direction. All data were extracted from Dynalog files recorded during the experiment.

Figure 3. Example of tracking experiment for lung tumor trajectory. (a, b) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory at the time of imaging (blue) and at the time of beam correction (i.e. after 570 ms prediction) (red). The data are shown in room coordinates (a) and in beam's eye view of the treatment beam (b). In (b), the real-time estimations are only shown for beam-on periods. (c) Position of marker (black) and beam aperture center (red) perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaves as determined from portal images. (d) Gantry angle. The numbers specify the rms position estimation error before/after prediction (a, b) and the rms tracking error (c).

Figure 3. Example of tracking experiment for lung tumor trajectory. (a, b) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory at the time of imaging (blue) and at the time of beam correction (i.e. after 570 ms prediction) (red). The data are shown in room coordinates (a) and in beam's eye view of the treatment beam (b). In (b), the real-time estimations are only shown for beam-on periods. (c) Position of marker (black) and beam aperture center (red) perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaves as determined from portal images. (d) Gantry angle. The numbers specify the rms position estimation error before/after prediction (a, b) and the rms tracking error (c).

Figure 4. Example of tracking experiment for prostate trajectory. (a) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory (blue) in room coordinates. (b) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory at the time of imaging (blue) and 570 ms later (red) in beam's eye view of the treatment beam. (c) Position of marker (black) and beam aperture center (red) perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaves as determined from portal images. (d) Gantry angle. The numbers specify the rms position estimation error at imaging (a) or at imaging/570 ms after imaging (b), and the rms tracking error (c).

Figure 4. Example of tracking experiment for prostate trajectory. (a) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory (blue) in room coordinates. (b) Phantom motion (black) and real-time estimated trajectory at the time of imaging (blue) and 570 ms later (red) in beam's eye view of the treatment beam. (c) Position of marker (black) and beam aperture center (red) perpendicular and parallel to the MLC leaves as determined from portal images. (d) Gantry angle. The numbers specify the rms position estimation error at imaging (a) or at imaging/570 ms after imaging (b), and the rms tracking error (c).

Table I. Results of experiments [and simulations hereof shown in brackets]. Rms of position estimation errors, tracking errors and target displacement.

Figure 5. Root-mean-square errors in 12 experiments for thorax/abdomen tumor trajectories versus the rms errors in simulations of the same experiments.

Figure 5. Root-mean-square errors in 12 experiments for thorax/abdomen tumor trajectories versus the rms errors in simulations of the same experiments.

Figure 6. Root-mean-square errors in five experiments for prostate trajectories versus the rms errors in simulations of the same experiments.

Figure 6. Root-mean-square errors in five experiments for prostate trajectories versus the rms errors in simulations of the same experiments.

Table II. Simulation results. Rms of position estimation errors and target displacement.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.