Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHewson, E
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, DT
dc.contributor.authorO'Brien, R
dc.contributor.authorKim, J-H
dc.contributor.authorMontanaro, T
dc.contributor.authorMoodie, T
dc.contributor.authorGreer, P
dc.contributor.authorHardcastle, N
dc.contributor.authorEade, T
dc.contributor.authorKneebone, A
dc.contributor.authorHruby, G
dc.contributor.authorHayden, A
dc.contributor.authorTurner, S
dc.contributor.authorSiva, S
dc.contributor.authorTai, K-H
dc.contributor.authorHunter, P
dc.contributor.authorSams, J
dc.contributor.authorPoulsen, P
dc.contributor.authorBooth, J
dc.contributor.authorMartin, J
dc.contributor.authorKeall, P
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-09
dc.date.available2020-07-09
dc.date.issued2019-01-01en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/22824
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) allows for real-time image guidance for tracking tumor motion in six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) on a standard linear accelerator. This study assessed the geometric accuracy and precision of KIM used to guide patient treatments in the TROG 15.01 multi-institutional Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM trial and investigated factors affecting accuracy and precision. Methods: Fractions from 44 patients with prostate cancer treated using KIM-guided SBRT were analyzed across four institutions, on two different linear accelerator models and two different beam models (6 MV and 10 MV FFF). The geometric accuracy and precision of KIM was assessed from over 33 000 images (translation) and over 9000 images (rotation) by comparing the real-time measured motion to retrospective kV/MV triangulation. Factors potentially affecting accuracy, including contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of kV images and incorrect marker segmentation, were also investigated. Results: The geometric accuracy and precision did not depend on treatment institution, beam model or motion magnitude, but was correlated with gantry angle. The centroid geometric accuracy and precision of the KIM system for SABR prostate treatments was 0.0 ± 0.5, 0.0 ± 0.4 and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm for translation, and -0.1 ± 0.6°, -0.1 ± 1.4° and -0.1 ± 1.0° for rotation in the AP, LR and SI directions respectively. Centroid geometric error exceeded 2 mm for 0.05% of this dataset. No significant relationship was found between large geometric error and CNR or marker segmentation correlation. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the ability of KIM to locate the prostate with accuracy below other uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments, and the feasibility for KIM to be implemented across multiple institutions.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherWileyen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Physicsen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.subjectImage-guided radiation therapyen_AU
dc.subjectProstate motionen_AU
dc.titleThe Accuracy and Precision of the KIM Motion Monitoring System Used in the Multi-Institutional TROG 15.01 Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy With KIM (SPARK) Trialen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrc0299 Other Physical Sciencesen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/mp.13784
dc.relation.nhmrc1112096
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Central Clinical Schoolen_AU
usyd.departmentACRF Image X Instituteen_AU
usyd.citation.volume46en_AU
usyd.citation.issue11en_AU
usyd.citation.spage4725en_AU
usyd.citation.epage4737en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.