Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Volume 61, Issue 3 pp. 394-401

Radiation Oncology—Original Article

Survey of image-guided radiotherapy use in Australia

Vikneswary Batumalai,

Corresponding Author

Vikneswary Batumalai

[email protected]

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence

Ms. Vikneswary Batumalai, Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, Sydney, NSW 1871, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Lois Charlotte Holloway,

Lois Charlotte Holloway

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Shivani Kumar,

Shivani Kumar

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Kylie Dundas,

Kylie Dundas

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Geoffrey Jameson,

Michael Geoffrey Jameson

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Shalini Kavita Vinod,

Shalini Kavita Vinod

orcid.org/0000-0001-8075-6219

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Geoff P Delaney,

Geoff P Delaney

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Vikneswary Batumalai,

Corresponding Author

Vikneswary Batumalai

[email protected]

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence

Ms. Vikneswary Batumalai, Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, Sydney, NSW 1871, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Lois Charlotte Holloway,

Lois Charlotte Holloway

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Shivani Kumar,

Shivani Kumar

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Kylie Dundas,

Kylie Dundas

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Geoffrey Jameson,

Michael Geoffrey Jameson

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Shalini Kavita Vinod,

Shalini Kavita Vinod

orcid.org/0000-0001-8075-6219

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Geoff P Delaney,

Geoff P Delaney

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 09 November 2016

https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12556

Citations: 29

V Batumalai MHlthSc; LC Holloway PhD; S Kumar MPH; K Dundas MAppSc (MRS); MG Jameson PhD; SK Vinod MBBS, FRANZCR, MD; GP Delaney MBBS, FRANZCR, MD, PhD.

Conflict of interest: None.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the current use of imaging technologies for planning and delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in Australia.

Methods

An online survey was emailed to all Australian RT centres in August 2015. The survey inquired about imaging practices during planning and treatment delivery processes. Participants were asked about the types of image-guided RT (IGRT) technologies and the disease sites they were used for, reasons for implementation, frequency of imaging and future plans for IGRT use in their department.

Results

The survey was completed by 71% of Australian RT centres. All respondents had access to computed tomography (CT) simulators and regularly co-registered the following scans to the RT: diagnostic CT (50%), diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (95%), planning MRI (34%), planning positron emission tomography (PET) (26%) and diagnostic PET (97%) to aid in tumour delineation. The main reason for in-room IGRT implementation was the use of highly conformal techniques, while the most common reason for under-utilisation was lack of equipment capability. The most commonly used IGRT modalities were kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam CT (CBCT) (97%), kV electronic portal image (EPI) (89%) and megavoltage (MV) EPI (75%). Overall, participants planned to increase IGRT use in planning (33%) and treatment delivery (36%).

Conclusions

IGRT is widely used among Australian RT centres. On the basis of future plans of respondents, the installation of new imaging modalities is expected to increase for both planning and treatment.

Supporting Information

References

1Karaiskos P, Mavroidis P, Ferreira BC et al. Investigating the impact of using CT vs. CT-MRI images during organ delineation and treatment planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009; 92: S161.
10.1016/S0167-8140(12)73009-8
Google Scholar
2Scripes PG, Yaparpalvi R. Technical aspects of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in radiotherapy treatment planning. Semin Oncol 2012; 42: 283–8.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Brunetti J, Caggiano A, Rosenbluth B, Vialotti C. Technical aspects of positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion planning. Semin Nucl Med 2008; 38: 129–36.
10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2007.11.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Metcalfe P, Liney G, Holloway L et al. The potential for an enhanced role for MRI in radiation-therapy treatment planning. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2013; 12: 429–46.
10.7785/tcrt.2012.500342
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155–61.
10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5631
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Konert T, Vogel W, MacManus MP et al. PET/CT imaging for target volume delineation in curative intent radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: IAEA consensus report 2014. Radiother Oncol 2015; 116: 27–34.
10.1016/j.radonc.2015.03.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Herman MG, Balter JM, Jaffray DA et al. Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58. Med Phys 2001; 28: 712–37.
10.1118/1.1368128
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Simpson DR, Lawson JD, Nath SK, Rose BS, Mundt AJ, Mell LK. A survey of image-guided radiation therapy use in the United States. Cancer 2010; 116: 3953–60.
10.1002/cncr.25129
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Nabavizadeh N, Elliott DA, Chen Y et al. Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) Practice Patterns and IGRT's Impact on Workflow and Treatment Planning: Results From a National Survey of American Society for Radiation Oncology Members. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94: 850–7.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.035
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Mayles W. Survey of the availability and use of advanced radiotherapy technology in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2010; 22: 636–42.
10.1016/j.clon.2010.06.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Jefferies S, Taylor A, Reznek R. Results of a National Survey of Radiotherapy Planning and Delivery in the UK in 2007. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2009; 21: 204–17.
10.1016/j.clon.2008.11.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Mutic S, Dempsey JF, Bosch WR et al. Multimodality image registration quality assurance for conformal three-dimensional treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 255–60.
10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01659-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Brock KK, Consortium DRA. Results of a multi-institution deformable registration accuracy study (MIDRAS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: 583–96.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.031
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Bridge P, Carmichael MA, Brady C, Dry A. A snapshot of radiation therapy techniques and technology in Queensland: an aid to mapping undergraduate curriculum. J Med Radiat Sci 2013; 60: 25–34.
10.1002/jmrs.5
PubMed Google Scholar
15Bridge P, Dempsey S, Giles E et al. Practice patterns of radiation therapy technology in Australia: results of a national audit. J Med Radiat Sci 2015; 62: 253–60.
10.1002/jmrs.127
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Wong VYW, Tung SY, Ng AWY, Li FAS, Leung JOY. Real-time monitoring and control on deep inspiration breath-hold for lung cancer radiotherapy—Combination of ABC and external marker tracking. Med Phys 2010; 37: 4673–83.
10.1118/1.3476463
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Cho B, Poulsen PR, Sawant A, Ruan D, Keall PJ. Real-time target position estimation using stereoscopic kilovoltage/megavoltage imaging and external respiratory monitoring for dynamic multileaf collimator tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 269–78.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.02.052
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Jin J-Y, Yin F-F, Tenn SE, Medin PM, Solberg TD. Use of the BrainLAB ExacTrac X-Ray 6D system in image-guided radiotherapy. Med Dosim 2008; 33: 124–34.
10.1016/j.meddos.2008.02.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Kupelian P, Willoughby T, Mahadevan A et al. Multi-institutional clinical experience with the Calypso System in localization and continuous, real-time monitoring of the prostate gland during external radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67: 1088–98.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.026
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Spezi E, Downes P, Jarvis R, Radu E, Staffurth J. Patient-specific three-dimensional concomitant dose from cone beam computed tomography exposure in image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 419–26.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1972
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Shah A, Aird E, Shekhdar J. Contribution to normal tissue dose from concomitant radiation for two common kV-CBCT systems and one MVCT system used in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105: 139–44.
10.1016/j.radonc.2012.04.017
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Batumalai V, Phan P, Choong C, Holloway L, Delaney G. Comparison of setup accuracy of three different image assessment methods for tangential breast radiotherapy. J Med Radiat Sci 2016; doi: 10.1002/jmrs.180.
10.1002/jmrs.180
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Topolnjak R, Sonke JJ, Nijkamp J et al. Breast patient setup error assessment: comparison of electronic portal image devices and cone-beam computed tomography matching results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78: 1235–43.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.021
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Borst GR, Sonke JJ, Betgen A, Remeijer P, van Herk M, Lebesque JV. Kilo-voltage cone beam CT setup measurements for lung cancer patients; first clinical results and comparison with electronic portal-imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 555–61.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Li H, Zhu XR, Zhang L et al. Comparison of 2D radiographic images and 3D cone beam computed tomography for positioning head-and-neck radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 916–25.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.01.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Perrier L, Morelle M, Pommier P et al. Cost of prostate image-guided radiation therapy: results of a randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 2013; 106: 50–8.
10.1016/j.radonc.2012.11.011
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Rybovic M, Halkett GK, Banati RB, Cox J. Radiation therapists’ perceptions of the minimum level of experience required to perform portal image analysis. Radiography 2008; 14: 294–300.
10.1016/j.radi.2007.07.004
Google Scholar
28Rybovic M, Halkett G, Williams M. Do confidence, formal training or years of experience influence the accuracy of electronic portal image review by radiation therapists? J Radiother Pract 2004; 4: 78–85.
10.1017/S1460396905000129
Google Scholar
29Foroudi F, Pham D, Bressel M et al. The utility of e-Learning to support training for a multicentre bladder online adaptive radiotherapy trial (TROG 10.01-BOLART). Radiother Oncol 2013; 109: 165–9.
10.1016/j.radonc.2012.10.019
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30Foroudi F, Wong J, Kron T et al. Development and evaluation of a training program for therapeutic radiographers as a basis for online adaptive radiation therapy for bladder carcinoma. Radiography 2010; 16: 14–20.
10.1016/j.radi.2009.09.002
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume61, Issue3

June 2017

Pages 394-401

Survey of image-guided radiotherapy use in Australia

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Survey of image-guided radiotherapy use in Australia

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information