Search

PurposeA novel radiotherapy outlining application uses a small number of user-assigned points across orthogonal planes to generate a mesh which is then edited across multiple slices using innovative three-dimensional (3D) sculpting tools. This paper presents the results of a bladder outlining study that compared times and volumes for the new tool with those of a conventional manual outlining tool.Materials and methodsAll students undertaking their first University radiotherapy planning module were invited to participate. Following training, they performed a timed outlining of the same male bladder dataset and provided feedback on their preferred method.ResultsComparison of times from the resulting ten datasets demonstrated that the 3D segmentation tool was significantly faster than conventional software with a mean time of 11·9 minutes compared with 19·2 minutes (p=0·03). The users expressed a preference for the new tool (eight users) over the conventional outlining software (two users).ConclusionsA minimal point 3D volumetric manual outlining tool utilising orthogonal computed tomography planes demonstrated significant time saving for bladder segmentation compared with axial-based outlining within a group of novice outliners. Future work aims to establish the role of the 3D multi-slice sculpting tools in editing of auto-segmentation derived contour sets. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal tumours delivers high doses per fraction to targets in close proximity to neural tissue. With steep dose gradients, small changes in position can confer significant dosimetric impact on adjacent structures. We analysed positioning error in consecutively treated patients on a strict image-guidance protocol with online correction in 6 degrees of freedom (6-DOF). Methods: Set-up error, residual error post-correction and intra-fraction motion for 30 courses of spinal SBRT in 27 patients were assessed using cone-beam CT. Positional error was corrected in x, y and z translational planes and rotational axes using a robotic couch, applying 2 mm and 2° action levels. Linear mixed-effects model assessed whether positional error was influenced by factors such as vertebral level, immobilisation device and treatment duration. Results: Sixty-two fractions were delivered with 225 image registrations. Median treatment duration was significantly longer for patients treated with static-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with volumetric-modulated arc treatment--40 min versus 28 min, respectively (P = 0.01). Across all fractions, the median residual positional error after initial correction was greatest in the x translational plane (0.5 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.6) and y rotational axis (0.25°; 95% CI 0.1-0.3). Median intra-fraction error was also greatest in the x-plane (0.7 mm; 95% CI 0.5-1.0) and y-axis (0.4°; 95% CI 0.2-0.5). Conclusion: With strict immobilisation, image-guidance and 6-DOF correction, our current practice of applying 3-mm planning margins for target volumes and critical structures appears safe. Lower image-guidance action thresholds plus verification with end-to-end testing would be recommended before further reducing margins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]