ImageGuided Alignment Verification with Submillimeter Precision for Functional Proton Radiosurgery

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

ImageGuided Alignment Verification with Submillimeter Precision for Functional Proton Radiosurgery

Description:

Patient Positioner. Isocentric gantry, 35 feet tall,~90 tons. 100 MeV 250 MeV protons ... 6-DOF robotic patient positioner. System Overview ... –

Number of Views:32
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: DIB99
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ImageGuided Alignment Verification with Submillimeter Precision for Functional Proton Radiosurgery


1
Image-Guided Alignment Verification with
Submillimeter Precision forFunctional Proton
Radiosurgery
  • Mahesh Neupane (1), Richard P. Levy(2) , Michael
    F. Moyers (2), Keith Schubert (1), Fadi Shihadeh
    (1) , and R.W. Schulte (2)
  • (1) California State University, San Bernardino,
    CA
  • (2) Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma
    Linda, CA

2
Introduction
  • High-energy proton beams (250 MeV), due to their
    exquisitely sharp lateral penumbra with minimal
    widening as the beam penetrates the patient, are
    suitable for functional radiosurgery procedures
    such as pallidotomy.

3
Purpose
  • Guiding a narrow proton beam with a proton gantry
    that weighs about 90 tons to a target with
    submillimeter precision requires a sophisticated
    alignment verification system.
  • We have developed a camera and marker-based
    system for this purpose and report on its initial
    performance in phantom tests.

4
Proton Gantry Patient Positioner
  • Isocentric gantry, 35 feet tall,90 tons
  • 100 MeV 250 MeV protons
  • 2 mm isocentric accuracy
  • 6-DOF robotic patient positioner

5
System Overview
  • Three high-resolution CCD cameras (Vicon Motion
    Systems, Inc., Oxford, UK) in an equilateral
    triangular configuration were focused on a
    patient-based marker system (caddy), attached to
    the stereotactic halo, and a proton-based marker
    system (cross) attached to the proton beam
    delivery cone.

6
System Components
Marker Caddy
Cone Marker Cross
7
System Components
Camera System
Phantom Base
8
Experimental Method
Align Simulated target with known stereotatic
coordinates to Simulated beam
Measure residual offset
Calculate beam axis and transform
to stereotactic system
Calculate coordinate transformation
Capture cone and caddy markers
Calculate distance between beam axis
and simulated marker
Correct for residual offset to calculate system
error
9
Experimental Setup
  • The markers, consisting of 5-mm ceramic balls
    covered with retro reflective tape, were the only
    structures visible to infrared-light strobed
    cameras.
  • Based on the marker coordinates in the
    camera-based coordinate system, coordinate
    transformation software was written that computes
    the position of the proton beam axis in the
    stereotactic system.

Markers
10
Phantom Base and Coordinate Transformations
  • Two different types of coordinate transforms were
    used a geometry-based orthogonal transform and a
    least-squares based transform.
  • The patient was simulated by a phantom base
    providing a (non-reflective) ceramic marker
    target in 15 discrete positions in stereotactic
    space.

Phantom Base
11
System Error
  • For each performance experiment, the target
    marker was aligned to the center of a 1-cm laser
    beam emerging from the proton delivery cone to
    better than 0.2 mm.
  • The residual offset between the beam axis and the
    target measured by the camera system was
    interpreted as the system error.

12
Results
  • The camera system was able to reproduce
    laboratory-inspected distances between the
    markers of the two marker systems with a mean
    error /- standard deviation (SD) of -0.23 /-
    0.33 mm for the caddy and 0.00 /- 0.09 mm for
    the cross.
  • The alignment system error was sensitive to the
    type of coordinate transformation used
  • In a series of 15 independent tests (5 target
    positions, 3 tests per position), a
    non-orthogonal least squares transform resulted
    in an unacceptable mean error (/- SD) of 25 /-
    8 mm (range, 14 mm - 36 mm).
  • On the other hand, an orthogonal transform
    preserving geometric distances was associated
    with a much smaller error of 0.6 /- 0.3 mm (0.2
    mm - 1.6 mm).

13
System Error
Orthogonal transformation
Least-squares based transformation
14
Conclusion
  • An image-guided alignment verification system has
    been tested under clinical conditions.
  • The system error approaches but has not yet
    reached the goal limit of less than 0.5 mm.
  • Various optimization options, e.g., different
    marker arrangements, will be applied to achieve
    this goal.

15
Acknowledgment
  • This research was funded by the
  • Henry L. Guenther
  • Foundation
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com