Intra- and inter-radiation therapist reproducibility of daily isocenter verification using prostatic fiducial markers

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 1; no. 1; p. 2
• Main Authors: Ullman, Karen L, Ning, Holly, Susil, Robert C, Ayele, Asna, Jocelyn, Lucresse, Havelos, Jan, Guion, Peter, Xie, Huchen, Li, Guang, Arora, Barbara C, Cannon, Angela, Miller, Robert W, Coleman, C Norman, Camphausen, Kevin, Ménard, Cynthia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 28.02.2006; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Equipment Design; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Phantoms, Imaging; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Radiation Dosage; Radiography; Radiotherapy - methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Reproducibility of Results
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-1-2

We sought to determine the intra- and inter-radiation therapist reproducibility of a previously established matching technique for daily verification and correction of isocenter position relative to intraprostatic fiducial markers (FM). With the patient in the treatment position, anterior-posterior and left lateral electronic images are acquired on an amorphous silicon flat panel electronic portal imaging device. After each portal image is acquired, the therapist manually translates and aligns the fiducial markers in the image to the marker contours on the digitally reconstructed radiograph. The distances between the planned and actual isocenter location is displayed. In order to determine the reproducibility of this technique, four therapists repeated and recorded this operation two separate times on 20 previously acquired portal image datasets from two patients. The data were analyzed to obtain the mean variability in the distances measured between and within observers. The mean and median intra-observer variability ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 mm and 0.3 to 0.6 mm respectively with a standard deviation of 0.4 to 1.0 mm. Inter-observer results were similar with a mean variability of 0.9 mm, a median of 0.6 mm, and a standard deviation of 0.7 mm. When using a 5 mm threshold, only 0.5% of treatments will undergo a table shift due to intra or inter-observer error, increasing to an error rate of 2.4% if this threshold were reduced to 3 mm. We have found high reproducibility with a previously established method for daily verification and correction of isocenter position relative to prostatic fiducial markers using electronic portal imaging.