A newly developed Gamma Knife relocatable eXtend frame system has enabled the delivery of multi-session Gamma Knife radiosurgery without the use of skull pin fixation frame system. In this study, we investigate and report for the first time the whole proce

A newly developed Gamma Knife relocatable eXtend frame system has enabled the delivery of multi-session Gamma Knife radiosurgery without the use of skull pin fixation frame system. In this study, we investigate and report for the first time the whole procedural radiological accuracy for administering such treatments. To quantify the radiological alignment, the commonly used Winston-Lutz test was modified and used to determine the device accuracy of the eXtend frame system. Patient setup uncertainties relative to the device were further measured for a series of treatment sessions (n = 58), and then incorporated with the Winston-Lutz test results from individual patient-specific eXtend frame systems. The whole-procedure mean 3D radiological setup uncertainty was determined to be 0.69 ± 0.73 mm (1δ) from all the cases analyzed, and the mean 90% confidence level margins were found to be 0.55, 0.78 and 0.72 mm along the x-, y-, and z-axis, respectively. Our results therefore demonstrated that sub-millimetric radiological accuracy is clinically achievable for multi-session Gamma Knife radiosurgery treatments and a 1 mm margin along the major axes is sufficient for planning multi-session Gamma Knife radiosurgery treatments.

Introduction

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) planning for spinal metastases is a challenging task that involves complex target shapes and steep dose gradients proximal to the spinal cord. The aim of the present study is to investigate dosimetric variability among delivery systems and institutions doing spine SBRT.Materials and Methods: Three institutions (in Japan, Canada, and the USA) participated in this retrospective treatment planning study. Computed tomography (CT) datasets for three patients including fully delineated targets and organs-at-risk (OAR) were distributed to all three institutions for planning. Delivery systems included the Clinac 21EX, Vero4DRT, Synergy S, and CyberKnife. All treatment plans were generated using a prescribed dose of 24 Gy in 2 fractions and met the following objectives: the evaluated planning target volume (PTV_evl, defined as the PTV minus spinal cord) should receive greater than 16.8 Gy in at least 95% of the volume (D₉₅ > 16.8 Gy) and a maximum dose to the less than 140% of the prescribed dose (D_max < 33.6 Gy). The maximum dose of planning risk volume (PRV) cord or thecal sac was limited to 0.035 cm³ receiving less than 17 Gy. Aside from minimum and maximum dose objectives for the PTV_evl, there were no criteria regarding the shape of the PTV_evl dose-volume histogram (DVH). For each completed treatment plan, the following DVH parameters were evaluated for the PTV_evl: D₉₅, D₈₀, D₅₀, D₂ and sigma-index (S-index, standard deviation of the differential DVH).

Results

The PTV_evl and OAR dose volume constraints were satisfied in all treatment plans. For Case 1, the mean PTV_evl D₅₀ was 25.4 ± 1.5 Gy (range: 23.7 - 27.8 Gy), for Case 2 it was 26.7 ± 2.0 Gy (23.6 - 28.6 Gy), and for Case 3 it was 26.0 ± 1.3 Gy (24.1 - 27.3 Gy). The mean PTV_evl D₂ was 27.3 ± 2.2 Gy (24.4 - 30.2 Gy), 28.9 ± 3.0 Gy (24.5 - 31.4 Gy) and 28.7 ± 2.7 Gy (25.2 - 31.6 Gy) for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, there were statistically significant variations in the DVH parameters of PTV_evl between apparatuses (CyberKnife versus non-CyberKnife) and among institutions (between 2 CyberKnife sites or between 2 conventional accelerator sites).

Conclusions

Although all institutions met the minimum prescribed objectives, inter-institutional and inter-apparatus target dose variations were observed. Further study is necessary to determine target dose constraints that may minimize inter-institutional variations and lead to plan standardization.

This study compares conventional and robotic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for prostate boost treatments and provides clinical insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each. The potential for dose escalation with robotic IMRT is further investigated using the "critical volume tolerance" method proposed by Roach et al. Three clinically acceptable treatment plans were generated for 10 prostate boost patients: (1) a robotic IMRT plan using fixed cones, (2) a robotic IMRT plan using the Iris variable aperture collimator, and (3) a conventional linac based IMRT (c-IMRT) plan. Target coverage, critical structure doses, homogeneity, conformity, dose fall-off, and treatment time, were compared across plans. The average bladder and rectum V75 was 17.1%, 20.0%, and 21.4%, and 8.5%, 11.9%, and 14.1% for the Iris, fixed, and c-IMRT plans, respectively. On average the conformity index (nCI) was 1.20, 1.30, and 1.46 for the Iris, fixed, and c-IMRT plans. Differences between the Iris and the c-IMRT plans were statistically significant for the bladder V75 (P= .016), rectum V75 (P= .0013), and average nCI (P =.002). Dose to normal tissue in terms of R50 was 4.30, 5.87, and 8.37 for the Iris, fixed and c-IMRT plans, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the Iris and c-IMRT (P = .0013) and the fixed and c-IMRT (P = .001) plans. In general, the robotic IMRT plans generated using the Iris were significantly better compared to c-IMRT plans, and showed average dose gains of up to 34% for a critical rectal volume of 5%.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a commercially available CyberKnife system with a multileaf collimator (CK-MLC) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and standard fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) applications. Ten prostate and ten intracranial cases were planned for the CK-MLC. Half of these cases were compared with clinically approved SBRT plans generated for the CyberKnife with circular collimators, and the other half were compared with clinically approved standard fractionated IMRT plans generated for conventional linacs. The plans were compared on target coverage, conformity, homogeneity, dose to organs at risk (OAR), low dose to the surrounding tissue, total monitor units (MU), and treatment time. CK-MLC plans generated for the SBRT cases achieved more homogeneous dose to the target than the CK plans with the circular collimators, for equivalent coverage, conformity, and dose to OARs. Total monitor units were reduced by 40% to 70% and treatment time was reduced by half. The CK-MLC plans generated for the standard fractionated cases achieved prescription isodose lines between 86% and 93%, which was 2%-3% below the plans generated for conventional linacs. Compared to standard IMRT plans, the total MU were up to three times greater for the prostate (whole pelvis) plans and up to 1.4 times greater for the intracranial plans. Average treatment time was 25 min for the whole pelvis plans and 19 min for the intracranial cases. The CK-MLC system provides significant improvements in treatment time and target homogeneity compared to the CK system with circular collimators, while maintaining high conformity and dose sparing to critical organs. Standard fractionated plans for large target volumes (>100 cm3) were generated that achieved high prescription isodose levels. The CK-MLC system provides more efficient SRS and SBRT treatments and, in select clinical cases, might be a potential alternative for standard fractionated treatments. PACS numbers: 87.56.nk, 87.56.bd.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy is a well-tolerated modality for the treatment of primary and metastatic liver lesions, and fiducials are often used as surrogates for tumor tracking during treatment. We evaluated respiratory-induced liver deformation by measuring the rigidity of the fiducial configuration during the breathing cycle. Seventeen patients, with 18 distinct treatment courses, were treated with stereotactic body radiosurgery using multiple fiducials. Liver deformation was empirically quantified by measuring the intrafiducial distances at different phases of respiration. Data points were collected at the 0%, 50%, and 100% inspiration points, and the distance between each pair of fiducials was measured at the 3 phases. The rigid body error was calculated as the maximum difference in the intrafiducial distances. Liver disease was calculated with Child-Pugh score using laboratory values within 3 months of initiation of treatment. A peripheral fiducial was defined as within 1.5 cm of the liver edge, and all other fiducials were classified as central. For 5 patients with only peripheral fiducials, the fiducial configuration had more deformation (average maximum rigid body error 7.11 mm, range: 1.89-11.35 mm) when compared to patients with both central and peripheral and central fiducials only (average maximum rigid body error 3.36 mm, range: 0.5-9.09 mm, P = .037). The largest rigid body errors (11.3 and 10.6 mm) were in 2 patients with Child-Pugh class A liver disease and multiple peripheral fiducials. The liver experiences internal deformation, and the fiducial configuration should not be assumed to act as a static structure. We observed greater deformation at the periphery than at the center of the liver. In our small data set, we were not able to identify cirrhosis, which is associated with greater rigidity of the liver, as predictive for deformation. Treatment planning based only on fiducial localization must take potential intraorgan deformation into account.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer is rapidly growing in popularity. Stereotactic body radiotherapy plans mimic those of high-dose rate brachytherapy, with tight margins and inhomogeneous dose distributions. The impact of interfraction anatomical changes on the dose received by organs at risk under these conditions has not been well documented. To estimate anatomical variation during stereotactic body radiotherapy, 10 patients were identified who received a prostate boost using robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy after completing 25 fractions of pelvic radiotherapy with daily megavoltage computed tomography. Rectal and bladder volumes were delineated on each megavoltage computed tomography, and the stereotactic body radiotherapy boost plan was registered to each megavoltage computed tomography image using a point-based rigid registration with 3 fiducial markers placed in the prostate. The volume of rectum and bladder receiving 75% of the prescription dose (V75%) was measured for each megavoltage computed tomography. The rectal V75% from the daily megavoltage computed tomographies was significantly greater than the planned V75% (median increase of 0.93 cm³, P < .001), whereas the bladder V75% on megavoltage computed tomography was not significantly changed (median decrease of -0.12 cm³, P = .57). Although daily prostate rotation was significantly correlated with bladder V75% (Spearman ρ = .21, P = .023), there was no association between rotation and rectal V75% or between prostate deformation and either rectal or bladder V75%. Planning organ-at-risk volume-based replanning techniques using either a 6-mm isotropic expansion of the plan rectal contour or a 1-cm expansion from the planning target volume in the superior and posterior directions demonstrated significantly improved rectal V75% on daily megavoltage computed tomographies compared to the original stereotactic body radiotherapy plan, without compromising plan quality. Thus, despite tight margins and full translational and rotational corrections provided by robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy, we find that interfraction anatomical variations can lead to a substantial increase in delivered rectal doses during prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. A planning organ-at-risk volume-based approach to treatment planning may help mitigate the impact of daily organ motion and reduce the risk of rectal toxicity.

Treatment plans for prostate cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are often challenging due to the proximity of organs at risk. Today, there are no objective criteria to determine whether an optimal treatment plan has been achieved, and physicians rely on their personal experience to evaluate the plan's quality. In this study, we propose a method for determining rectal and bladder dose constraints achievable for a given patient's anatomy. We expect that this method will improve the overall plan quality and consistency, and facilitate comparison of clinical outcomes across different institutions. The 3D proximity of the organs at risk to the target is quantified by means of the expansion-intersection volume (EIV), which is defined as the intersection volume between the target and the organ at risk expanded by 5 mm. We determine a relationship between EIV and relevant dosimetric parameters, such as the volume of bladder and rectum receiving 75% of the prescription dose (V75%). This relationship can be used to establish institution-specific criteria to guide the treatment planning and evaluation process. A database of 25 prostate patients treated with CyberKnife SBRT is used to validate this approach. There is a linear correlation between EIV and V75% of bladder and rectum, confirming that the dose delivered to rectum and bladder increases with increasing extension and proximity of these organs to the target. This information can be used during the planning stage to facilitate the plan optimization process, and to standardize plan quality and consistency. We have developed a method for determining customized dose constraints for prostate patients treated with robotic SBRT. Although the results are technology specific and based on the experience of a single institution, we expect that the application of this method by other institutions will result in improved standardization of clinical practice.

Purpose/objective

Dose calculation in treatment planning must account for tissue heterogeneity, especially for tumors within low-density lung tissues. While Monte Carlo (MC) calculation methods are the most accurate, Ray Tracing (RT) methods are also commonly employed. We evaluated dose calculation differences between the RT and MC algorithms in central and peripheral lung tumors treated with CyberKnife SBRT to determine which planning parameters may predict dose differences. We also examined clinical outcomes of local-regional control (LRC) and long-term treatment-related toxicity as a function of calculation method.

Materials/methods

A retrospective series of 70 patient plans (19 central and 51 peripheral lung lesions) treated between 2009 and 2011 were analyzed. Among those, 33 were primary lung cancer and 37 were metastatic lesions. Thirty-three treatment plans were developed with the RT method, and 37 plans used MC. Groups were recalculated with the reciprocal method for dose comparison. Parameters examined to quantify dose differences between the two algorithms included: dose delivered to 95% (D95) of the planning target volume (PTV), dose heterogeneity, and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Dose differences were analyzed as a function of target volume, distance to soft tissue, and fraction of target overlap with soft tissue. For the subset of primary lung tumors, LRC was assessed radiographically at a median follow-up of 19 months (mo) (range, 2 to 41 mo).

Results

Compared to MC, the RT algorithm largely overestimated the dose delivered to the PTV. The dose difference between RT and MC plans correlated to the volume of PTV overlapping with soft tissue; the smaller the overlap volume, the larger the dose differences between RT and MC. Compared to MC, the RT algorithm overestimated the dose delivered to 10% of the ipsilateral lung (D10%). Evidence of local progression was noted in only one of the 31 patients treated for primary lung malignancy. DFS and OS were not significantly different between RT and MC plans.

Conclusion

There is a significant range of discordance between MC and RT dose calculations for SBRT treated peripheral lung tumors. While variation is correlated to target size and proximity to soft tissue, no single parameter can reliably predict dose differences. Ultimately, local control and long-term toxicity appear independent of the dose calculation method.