This study reports the beam commissioning results for the first clinical RefleXion Linac.

Methods

The X1 produces a 6 MV photon beam and the maximum clinical field size is 40 × 2 cm² at source-to-axis distance of 85 cm. Treatment fields are collimated by a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves with width of 0.625 cm and y-jaw pairs to provide either a 1 or 2 cm opening. The mechanical alignment of the radiation source, the y-jaw, and MLC were checked with film and ion chambers. The beam parameters were characterized using a diode detector in a compact water tank. In-air lateral profiles and in-water percentage depth dose (PDD) were measured for beam modeling of the treatment planning system (TPS). The lateral profiles, PDDs, and output factors were acquired for field sizes from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm² field to verify the beam modeling. The rotational output variation and synchronicity were tested to check the gantry angle, couch motion, and gantry rotation.

Results

The source misalignments were 0.049 mm in y-direction, 0.66% out-of-focus in x-direction. The divergence of the beam axis was 0.36 mm with a y-jaw twist of 0.03°. Clinical off-axis treatment fields shared a common center in y-direction were within 0.03 mm. The MLC misalignment and twist were 0.57 mm and 0.15°. For all measured fields ranging from the size from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm² , the mean difference between measured and TPS modeled PDD at 10 cm depth was -0.3%. The mean transverse profile difference in the field core was -0.3% ± 1.1%. The full-width half maximum (FWHM) modeling was within 0.5 mm. The measured output factors agreed with TPS within 0.8%.

Conclusions

This study summarizes our specific experience commissioning the first novel RefleXion linac, which may assist future users of this technology when implementing it into their own clinics.

Purpose: The first clinical biology-guided radiation therapy (BgRT) system-RefleXion^TM X1-was installed and commissioned for clinical use at our institution. This study aimed at evaluating the treatment plan quality and delivery efficiency for IMRT/SBRT cases without PET guidance. Methods: A total of 42 patient plans across 6 cancer sites (conventionally fractionated lung, head, and neck, anus, prostate, brain, and lung SBRT) planned with the Eclipse^TM treatment planning system (TPS) and treated with either a TrueBeam^® or Trilogy^® were selected for this retrospective study. For each Eclipse VMAT plan, 2 corresponding plans were generated on the X1 TPS with 10 mm jaws (X1-10mm) and 20 mm jaws (X1-20mm) using our institutional planning constraints. All clinically relevant metrics in this study, including PTV D95%, PTV D2%, Conformity Index (CI), R50, organs-at-risk (OAR) constraints, and beam-on time were analyzed and compared between 126 VMAT and RefleXion plans using paired t-tests. Results: All but 3 planning metrics were either equivalent or superior for the X1-10mm plans as compared to the Eclipse VMAT plans across all planning sites investigated. The Eclipse VMAT and X1-10mm plans generally achieved superior plan quality and sharper dose fall-off superior/inferior to targets as compared to the X1-20mm plans, however, the X1-20mm plans were still considered acceptable for treatment. On average, the required beam-on time increased by a factor of 1.6 across all sites for X1-10mm compared to X1-20mm plans. Conclusions: Clinically acceptable IMRT/SBRT treatment plans were generated with the X1 TPS for both the 10 mm and 20 mm jaw settings.

Purpose

The RefleXion X1 is a novel radiotherapy machine designed for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). Its treatment planning system (TPS) generates IMRT and SBRT plans for a 6MV-FFF beam delivered axially via 50 firing positions with the couch advancing every 2.1 mm. The purpose of this work is to report the TPS commissioning results for the first clinical installation of RefleXion™ X1.

Methods

CT images of multiple phantoms were imported into the RefleXion TPS to evaluate the accuracy of data transfer, anatomical modeling, plan evaluation, and dose calculation. Comparisons were made between the X1, Eclipse™, and MIM™. Dosimetric parameters for open static fields were evaluated in water and heterogeneous slab phantoms. Representative clinical IMRT and SBRT cases were planned and verified with ion chamber, film, and ArcCHECK^@ measurements. The agreement between TPS and measurements for various clinical plans was evaluated using Gamma analysis with a criterion of 3%/2 mm for ArcCHECK^@ and film. End-to-end (E2E) testing was performed using anthropomorphic head and lung phantoms.

Results

The average difference between the TPS-reported and known HU values was -1.4 ± 6.0 HU. For static fields, the agreements between the TPS-calculated and measured PDD₁₀ , crossline profiles, and inline profiles (FWHM) were within 1.5%, 1.3%, and 0.5 mm, respectively. Measured output factors agreed with the TPS within 1.3%. Measured and calculated dose for static fields in heterogeneous phantoms agreed within 2.5%. The ArcCHECK^@ mean absolute Gamma passing rate was 96.4% ± 3.4% for TG 119 and TG 244 plans and 97.8% ± 3.6% for the 21 clinical plans. E2E film analysis showed 0.8 mm total targeting error for isocentric and 1.1 mm for off-axis treatments.

Conclusions

The TPS commissioning results of the RefleXion X1 TPS were within the tolerances specified by AAPM TG 53, MPPG 5.a, TG 119, and TG 148. A subset of the commissioning tests has been identified as baseline data for an ongoing QA program.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The impact of radiotherapy (RT) at ultra high vs conventional dose rate (FLASH vs CONV) on the generation and repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) is an important question that remains to be investigated. Here, we tested the hypothesis as to whether FLASH-RT generates decreased chromosomal translocations compared to CONV-RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used two FLASH validated electron beams and high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing (HTGTS-JoinT-seq), employing S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 bait DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in HEK239T cells, to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to prey DSBs generated after various irradiation doses, dose rates and oxygen tensions (normoxic, 21% O2; physiological, 4% O2; hypoxic, 2% and 0.5% O2). Electron irradiation was delivered using a FLASH capable Varian Trilogy and the eRT6/Oriatron at CONV (0.08-0.13 Gy/s) and FLASH (1x102-5x106 Gy/s) dose rates. Related experiments using clonogenic survival and γH2AX foci in the 293T and the U87 glioblastoma lines were also performed to discern FLASH-RT vs CONV-RT DSB effects. RESULTS: Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Furthermore, RT dose rate modality on U87 cells did not change γH2AX foci numbers at 1- and 24-hours post-irradiation nor did this affect 293T clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.

FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT), delivered with ultrahigh dose rate (UHDR), may allow patients to be treated with less normal tissue toxicity for a given tumor dose compared with currently used conventional dose rate. Clinical trials are being carried out and are needed to test whether this improved therapeutic ratio can be achieved clinically. During the clinical trials, quality assurance and credentialing of equipment and participating sites, particularly pertaining to UHDR-specific aspects, will be crucial for the validity of the outcomes of such trials. This report represents an initial framework proposed by the NRG Oncology Center for Innovation in Radiation Oncology FLASH working group on quality assurance of potential UHDR clinical trials and reviews current technology gaps to overcome. An important but separate consideration is the appropriate design of trials to most effectively answer clinical and scientific questions about FLASH. This paper begins with an overview of UHDR RT delivery methods. UHDR beam delivery parameters are then covered, with a focus on electron and proton modalities. The definition and control of safe UHDR beam delivery and current and needed dosimetry technologies are reviewed and discussed. System and site credentialing for large, multi-institution trials are reviewed. Quality assurance is then discussed, and new requirements are presented for treatment system standard analysis, patient positioning, and treatment planning. The tables and figures in this paper are meant to serve as reference points as we move toward FLASH-RT clinical trial performance. Some major questions regarding FLASH-RT are discussed, and next steps in this field are proposed. FLASH-RT has potential but is associated with significant risks and complexities. We need to redefine optimization to focus not only on the dose but also on the dose rate in a manner that is robust and understandable and that can be prescribed, validated, and confirmed in real time. Robust patient safety systems and access to treatment data will be critical as FLASH-RT moves into the clinical trials.