A clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin recipes was routinely used to ensure dose was actually delivered to target for all (most) patients. Currently used margin recipes were associated with only translational set-up errors in radiotherapy. However, when set-up errors extended to six-degree (6D) scope (three translational and three rotational set-up errors), margin recipe should be re-evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate dosimetric changes of targets (both CTV and PTV) coverage when 6D set-up errors were introduced and testify the practicability of currently used margin recipe in radiotherapy. A total number of 105 cone beam computer tomography scans for ten patients with cervical cancer were derived prior to treatment delivery and 6D set-up errors were acquired with image registration tools. Target coverage was evaluated retrospectively for 6D set-up errors introduced plan with 6 mm CTV to PTV margin. Target coverage of PTV showed significant decreases (3.3 %) in set-up errors introduced plans compared with original plans. But CTV coverage was not susceptible to these set-up errors. A tendency of coverage decrease for PTV along with distance away from treatment was testified, from −0.2 to −6.2 %. However, CTV seems changed less, from −0.2 to −0.8 %. The result indicate that a CTV to PTV margin of 6 mm was sufficient to take into account 6D set-up errors for most patients with cervical cancer. Future research suggests a smaller margin to further improve both tumor coverage and organs at risk sparing.

Background: The setup accuracy plays an extremely important role in the local control of tumors. The purpose of this study is to verify the feasibility of "Sphere-Mask" Optical Positioning System (S-M_OPS) for fast and accurate setup.Methods: From 2016 to 2021, we used S-M_OPS to supervise 15441 fractions in 1981patients (with the cancer in intracalvarium, nasopharynx, esophagus, lung, liver, abdomen or cervix) undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and recorded the data such as registration time and mask deformation. Then, we used S-M_OPS, laser line and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for co-setup in 277 fractions, and recorded laser line-guided setup errors and S-M_OPS-guided setup errors with CBCT-guided setup result as the standard.Results: S-M_OPS supervision results: The average time for laser line-guided setup was 31.75s. 12.8% of the reference points had an average deviation of more than 2 mm and 5.2% of the reference points had an average deviation of more than 3 mm. Co-setup results: The average time for S-M_OPS-guided setup was 7.47s, and average time for CBCT-guided setup was 228.84s (including time for CBCT scan and manual verification). In the LAT (left/right), VRT (superior/inferior) and LNG (anterior/posterior) directions, laser line-guided setup errors (mean±SD) were -0.21±3.13mm, 1.02±2.76mm and 2.22±4.26mm respectively; the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of laser line-guided setup errors were -6.35 to 5.93mm, -4.39 to 6.43mm and -6.14 to 10.58mm respectively; S-M_OPS-guided setup errors were 0.12±1.91mm, 1.02±1.81mm and -0.10±2.25mm respectively; the 95% CIs of S-M_OPS-guided setup errors were -3.86 to 3.62mm, -2.53 to 4.57mm and -4.51 to 4.31mm respectively.Conclusion: S-M_OPS can greatly improve setup accuracy and stability compared with laser line-guided setup. Furthermore, S-M_OPS can provide comparable setup accuracy to CBCT in less setup time.