Methods: The Sentinel system consists of a scanner unit, containing the laser and the camera, and
surface-matching registration software. For the registration procedure, both a computed tomography
(CT) and a Sentinel image can be used as a reference. Tests were performed on phantoms using
an Elekta SynergyVR beam modulator Linac equipped with a cone beam CT (CBCT), a HexaPOD
RT couch top, and an iViewGT portal imaging system. Experiments conducted in this study tested
reproducibility of the Sentinel surface acquisition and of set-up procedure, accuracy in quantifying
known phantom mispositioning, and compared Sentinel, CBCT, and portal imaging system
performance.
Results: Reproducibility of surface acquisition and setup procedure was better than 0.5mm and
0.5 and 1mm and 0.4, respectively. The system accuracy was better than 1mm and 1 when a
Sentinel image was used as reference. A global worsening of Sentinel performance was observed
using as reference an external surface extracted from CT study. This effect is probably due to small
differences in considered surfaces, caused by different imaging modalities. The results obtained by
testing the system on rigid phantoms were comparable to those obtained using CBCT and better
than those obtained with conventional portal imaging systems.
Conclusions: The Sentinel setup verification device is a reproducible and consistent system able
to detect misalignments with accuracy better than 1mm and 1. When tested on rigid body
phantoms, Sentinel and CBCT performed similarly. When compared to portal imaging, both
Sentinel and CBCT were more accurate. VC 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
[DOI: 10.1118/1.3675973]
Key words: surface matching, patient setup, registration, optical system