The team. Disclosures. Ultrasound Guidance During Radiation Delivery: Confronting the Treatment Interference Challenge.

Transcription

1 Ultrasound Guidance During Radiation Delivery: Confronting the Treatment Interference Challenge Dimitre Hristov Radiation Oncology Stanford University The team Renhui Gong 1 Magdalena Bazalova-Carter 1 Ralf Bruder 2 Achim Schweikard 2 Jeff Schlosser 3 1 Stanford University, Radiation Oncology, Stanford, United States 2 Institute for Robotics and Cognitive Systems, Luebeck, Germany 3 Sonitrack Systems, Menlo Park, United States Disclosures Funding/equipment provided at various stages by: NIH STTR grant to Sonitrack Systems NSF Philips Ultrasound Interson Stanford Bio-X IIP 1

2 Anatomy position Imaging during beam delivery Add-on, real-time, volumetric, soft-tissue guidance during radiation beam delivery is largely unmet challenge Image guidance architecture Beam gating Linear accelerator LINAC Accelerator control console Optical tracker US probe Patient US probe manipulator US-guidance workstation computer High level robot commands Robot Control control (I7) US image stream US imaging system US probe position data (6 DOF) Schlosser J, Salisbury K, Hristov D, Telerobotic system concept for real-time soft-tissue imaging during radiotherapy beam delivery, Med Phys. 21 Dec;37(12): Telerobotic imaging Remote Haptic Interface Robot Schlosser J, Salisbury K, Hristov D, Telerobotic system concept for real-time soft-tissue imaging during radiotherapy beam delivery, Med Phys. 21 Dec;37(12):

3 Telerobotic imaging Challenge: Tele-robotic imaging interfering with linac and beam! Remote Haptic Interface Robot Schlosser J, Salisbury K, Hristov D, Telerobotic system concept for real-time soft-tissue imaging during radiotherapy beam delivery, Med Phys. 21 Dec;37(12):

4 Approaches to the treatment interference challenge Avoid beams through probe and robot Can we assure resulting plan is clinically acceptable for a given patient? Include probe and robot in plan Can they be modelled sufficiently accurately? Make probe and robot disappear Has Dimitre gone mad? 1 Avoid beams through probe and robot CT simulation Guide device placement to potential noninterfering imaging positions Confirm adequate image quality Augmented reality system for ultrasound guided radiation therapy Renhui Gong, Ralf Bruder, Achim Schweikard, Jeff Schlosser, and Dimitre Hristov, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, June 215, Volume 1, Issue 1 S31 11 Probe placement map generation Ralf Bruder, Floris Ernst and Achim Schweikard, SU D 22 2: Optimal transducer positions for 4D ultrasound guidance in cardiac IGRT, in: 53rd Annual Meeting of the AAPM, pages 339,

5 Probe placement map generation Define target and map attenuation to target from surface CT simulation Register probe and robot to CT during simulation by scanning optically tracked tool Guide probe placement towards non-interfering positions during simulation: probe placement map 14 Probe placement map confirmation Visualize probe in virtual space during actual imaging. 15 5

6 Probe placement map confirmation Visualize live US images fused with CT and target. 16 Avoid beams through probe and robot Planning Verify non-interference of designed plan Suggest slight changes of robot placement if necessary Design plan trajectories to avoid robot 17 Incorporate robot model in planning Custom xml descriptor defining joints and limits 18 6

7 Virtual simulation environment Robot placement 19 Robot placement in 3D 2 Recorded joint positions during simulation or interactive setup Virtual simulation environment Plan interference evaluation by loading RT objects 21 7

8 Collision evaluation Plan interference evaluation 22 Beam evaluation Beam eye-view to monitor entrance through probe/robot Include probe and robot in plan No probe present Matrix array transducer Philips X6-1 3D/4D matrix array probe Severe CT artifacts preclude CT-based modeling. 8

9 Megavoltage CT for electron density calibration Electron density models of X6-1 and C5-2 ultrasound probes built with a Tomotherapy 3.5 MV CT scan. No probe present Matrix array transducer Monte Carlo modeling of ultrasound probes for image guided radiotherapy Magdalena Bazalova-Carter, Jeffrey Schlosser, Josephine Chen, and Dimitre Hristov Submitted to Medical Physics Experimental setup No probe present Note detail differences between MC, film, and 2D array. X6-1 Probe Horizontal Position No probe present 9

10 MC versus 2D array No probe present X6-1 Probe Vertical Position No probe present Cable placement introduces dose discrepancies. Remotely-Actuated Ultrasound Scanning (RUSS) Stepper motor DC motor Flexible shaft Rigid linkage system Make probe and robot disappear (well partially) Axis 1 (lateral rotation) Axis 2 (elevational rotation) Transducer element 3D US volume Elevational sweep 2D US planes Lateral sweep 1

11 Frame rate and Field of View For ~1 slice per elevational degree: Elevational Sweep Angle Lateral Imaging Sweep Depth Angle Axial Slice Field of View 15⁰ 19⁰ 15 cm 5. cm x 4. cm 23⁰ 29⁰ 1 cm 5. cm x 4. cm 45⁰ 6⁰ 5 cm 5. cm x 4. cm 15⁰ 6⁰ 15 cm 15. cm x 4. cm 23⁰ 6⁰ 1 cm 1. cm x 4. cm 45⁰ 6⁰ 5 cm 5. cm x 4. cm # of Elevational Slices Volumes Per Second Planes Per Second Spatial Resolution Method: Lateral/elevational: point spread using -3dB peak drop-off Axial: minimum resolvable spacing 11

12 Target Displacement Error [mm] Target Displacement Error [mm] Target Displacement Error [mm] Tracked Target Displacement [mm] Tracked Target Displacement [mm] Tracked Target Displacement [mm] Resolution [mm] Elevational Resolution [mm] Spatial Resolution: Results Depth [mm] Depth [mm] 1 Slices 16 Slices 2 Slices 24 Slices 3 Slices 4 Slices Axial Lateral Elevational 5 cm depth 1 mm 5.1 mm 3.7 mm 1 cm depth 1 mm 7.9 mm 5.7 mm Tracking Resolution Method: US phantom placed on motion platform Targets automatically tracked using normalized cross correlation Tracking Resolution: Results Actual Target Displacement [mm] Actual Target Displacement [mm] Actual Target Displacement [mm] Actual Target Displacement [mm] Actual Target Displacement [mm] Actual Target Displacement [mm] Axial Lateral Elevational Mean Target Tracking Error.2 mm.4 mm.3 mm Max Target Tracking Error.4 mm 1.7 mm.9 mm 12

13 CT Compatibility No probe present Philips X6-1 3D/4D matrix array probe RUSS probe Radiotherapy Beam Compatibility Method 1: Compare planned and delivered dose through RUSS probe Method 2: Image-based tracking during beam delivery Experimental Setup: Accuros Plan: Radiotherapy Beam Compatibility: Results 6MV PTW Measurements 15MV PTW Measurements All points met 2. mm / 3.% dose deviation criteria 13

14 Tracked Target Displament (Normalized) Radiotherapy Beam Compatibility: Results 6MV PTW Measurements 15MV PTW Measurements Tracking Performance with beam on/off Beam off Beam on Relative Probe Displacement [mm] All points met 2. mm / 3.% dose deviation criteria RUSS summary Metric Framerate and Field of View (FOV) Target: Intrafractional Liver Radiotherapy Guidance 6.5 cm x 4 cm FOV at 5-15 cm depth; 1 volume per second Result with RUSS 1 cm depth: 5. cm x 4. cm FOV, 2.2 Hz volume rate, 48 Hz plane rate Tracking Resolution 2 mm in each direction.4 mm mean resolution Imaging during radiation delivery Radiotherapy planning compatibility No statistically significant difference between tracking performance with beam on/off ±3.% / 2. mm agreement between computed and measured dose distributions p=.52 All points agree within ±3.% / 2. mm RUSS performance meets requirements for intrafractional radiotherapy motion management Low CT artifacts, beam compatibility, and low cost Conclusions Addressing treatment interferences by tele-robotic US imaging requires simulation tools for avoidance or inclusion strategies Inclusion strategy feasible but possibly less practical than avoidance Dedicated radiolucent ultrasound probes may greatly facilitate RT ultrasound guidance but careful evaluation of performance trade-offs is necessary 14