Discrepancies between frame‐ and CBCT‐based stereotactic space definition on the Gamma Knife Icon

Purpose To assess differences between frame‐based and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)‐defined stereotactic space and to identify predictors of the observed findings. Methods and materials Differences between frame‐based and CBCT‐defined stereotactic space after image co‐registration were review...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2022-07, Vol.23 (7), p.e13637-n/a
Main Authors: Bannikova, Irina I., Dalechina, Aleksandra V., Kostjuchenko, Valery V., ZHuravleva, Anjelika E., Golanov, Andrey V., Banov, Sergey M., Osinov, Ivan K., Savateev, Aleksandr N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
CBCT
Leksell Gamma Knife Icon
Localization
MRI fiducial errors
Patients
Planning
Radiation
Radiation Oncology Physics
Radiosurgery
Regression analysis
spatial shifts
stereotactic frame
stereotactic space
Tomography
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To assess differences between frame‐based and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)‐defined stereotactic space and to identify predictors of the observed findings. Methods and materials Differences between frame‐based and CBCT‐defined stereotactic space after image co‐registration were reviewed for 529 patients. Treatment planning system reported the information about the shifts in X, Y, and Z coordinates of the center of the stereotactic space (i.e., coordinate X = 100 mm, Y = 100 mm, and Z = 100 mm) defined by the frame, and the maximum shot displacement (MSD) in mm. We collected the potential predictors of the differences. In total, 19 factors were investigated. We used multiple linear regression to evaluate associations with the increased differences. Results Rotational and translational shifts greater than 1° and 1 mm, respectively, were observed in 2.6% of patients. At the same time, a decrease in tumor coverage of more than 5% was detected in 8.3% of cases. It was revealed that the higher fiducial errors (both mean and maximum), the greater weight of the patient, and the lower Karnofsky Performance Scale were predictors of increased rotational, translational shifts, and the MSD.
ISSN:1526-9914
1526-9914
DOI:10.1002/acm2.13637