CyberKnife Plans Research Articles

Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy with the newly‐developed tumor‐tracking system and cyberknife

PurposeWith a new tumor‐tracking system (Synchrony®) for tomotherapy (Radixact®), the internal and set‐up margins can be tightened, like cyberknife (CyberKnife®), in the planning of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Recently, the usefulness of placing a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum has been established in prostate radiotherapy. We evaluated the characteristics of tomotherapy plans with the tumor‐tracking system and compared them with cyberknife SBRT plans for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.MethodsIn 20 patients, two plans were created and compared using tomotherapy and cyberknife. All patients underwent hydrogel spacer injection behind the prostate before simulation CT and MRI for fusion. For all plans, 36.25 Gy in 7.25‐Gy fractions for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of planning target volume (PTV) (D95%) was prescribed. The D99% of PTV and D0.1 ml of the PTV, urethra, bladder, and rectum were intended to be > 90%, 110–130%, 100–110%, <110%, and <100%, respectively, of the prescribed doses.ResultsAll plans using tomotherapy and cyberknife achieved the intended dose constraints. The cyberknife plans yielded better median PTV‐V110% (volume of PTV covered by 110% isodose line, 54.8%), maintaining lower median D0.1 ml of the urethra (37.5 Gy) and V80% of the bladder (11.0 ml) compared to the tomotherapy plans (39.0%; p < 0.0001, 38.2 Gy; p < 0.0001, and 18.3 ml; p < 0.0001, respectively). The tomotherapy plans were superior to the cyberknife plans for the rectum (V80% = 0.4 vs. 1.0 ml, p < 0.001; D1ml = 26.4 vs. 29.0 Gy, p = 0.013).ConclusionsOur results suggested that tomotherapy with the tumor‐tracking system has reasonable potential for SBRT for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer using the non-coplanar radiation of Cyberknife and Varian linac.

This study aims to evaluate the planned dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treating early peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using the non-coplanar radiation from Cyberknife and Varian linac. Moreover, this study investigates whether Cyberknife and Varian linac are qualified for non-coplanar radiation SBRT for treating early peripheral NSCLC, and which one is better for protecting organs at risk (OARs). Retrospective analysis was performed based on the Cyberknife radiation treatment plans (RTPs) and Varian Eclipse RTPs of 10 patients diagnosed with early peripheral NSCLC. The dose distributions in the target and OARs were compared between the RTPs of Cyberknife and Varian Eclipse using Mim medical imaging software. For PTV, no significant difference in D98 and D95 between the Cyberknife and Eclipse was observed (t = -0.35, -1.67, P > 0.05). The homogeneity indexes (HIs) of Cyberknife plans are higher (t = 71.86, P < 0.05) than those of Eclipse plans. The V10, V15, V20, V25, V30 and Dmean of the lung with NSCLC and the V20 of the whole lung for Cyberknife were less than those for Eclipse (t = -4.73, -5.62, -7.75, -6.38, -6.89, -3.14, -7.09, respectively, P < 0.05). Cyberknife plans have smaller spinal cord Dmax, trachea Dmax, heart Dmax, chest wall Dmax (t = -2.49, -2.57, -3.71, -3.56, respectively, P < 0.05) and esophagus Dmax (t = -1.95, P > 0.05) than Varian Eclipse plans. To fulfill SBRT by non-coplanar radiation, Cyberknife is recommended for the institutions equipped with Cyberknife, while Varian linac can be applied for the institutions that have not adopted Cyberknife in clinical radiotherapyyet.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of treatment plan between CyberKnife and EDGE in stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer

To perform a comparison of the different stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans between the Varian EDGE and CyberKnife (CK) systems for locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Fifteen patients with pancreatic cancer were selected in this study. The median planning target volume (PTV) was 28.688 cm3 (5.736–49.246 cm3). The SBRT plans for the EDGE and CK were generated in the Eclipse and Multiplan systems respectively with the same contouring and dose constrains for PTV and organs at risk (OARs). Dose distributions in PTV were evaluated in terms of coverage, conformity index (CI), new conformity index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), and gradient index (GI). OARs, including spinal cord, bowel, stomach, duodenum and kidneys were statistically evaluated by different dose-volume metrics and equivalent uniform dose (EUD). The volume covered by the different isodose lines (ISDL) ranging from 10 to 100% for normal tissue were also analyzed. All SBRT plans for EDGE and CK met the dose constraints for PTV and OARs. For the PTV, the dosimetric metrics in EDGE plans were lower than that in CK, except that D99 and GI were slightly higher. The EDGE plans with lower CI, nCI and HI were superior to generate more conformal and homogeneous dose distribution for PTV. For the normal tissue, the CK plans were better at OARs sparing. The radiobiological indices EUD of spinal cord, duodenum, stomach, and kidneys were lower for CK plans, except that liver were higher. The volumes of normal tissue covered by medium ISDLs (with range of 20–70%) were lower for CK plans while that covered by high and low ISDLs were lower for EDGE plans. This study indicated that both EDGE and CK generated equivalent plan quality, and both systems can be considered as beneficial techniques for SBRT of pancreatic cancer. EDGE plans offered more conformal and homogeneous dose distribution for PTV, while the CK plans could minimize the exposure of OARs.

Robotic MLC-based plans: A study of plan complexity.

The utility of complexity metrics has been assessed for IMRT and VMAT treatment plans, but this analysis has never been performed for CyberKnife (CK) plans. The purpose of this study is to perform a complexity analysis of CK MLC plans, adapting and computing complexity indices previously defined for IMRT plans. Metrics were used to compare the complexity of plans created by two optimization systems and to study correlations between plan complexity and patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) results. Relationships between pairs of metrics were also analyzed to get insight into possible interdependencies. Two independent in-house software platforms were developed to compute six complexity metrics: modulation complexity score (MCS), edge metric (EM), plan irregularity (PI), plan modulation (PM), leaf gap (LG), and small aperture score (SAS10). MCS and PM definitions were adapted to account for CK plans characteristics. The computed metrics were used to compare the existing optimization algorithms (sequential and VOLO) in terms of plan complexity over 24 selected cases. Metrics were then computed over a large number (103) of VOLO SBRT clinical plans from different treatment sites, mainly liver, prostate, pancreas, and spine. Pearson's r was used to study relationships between each pair of metrics. Correlation between complexity indices and PSQA results expressed as gamma index passing rates (GPR) at (3%, 1mm) and (2%, 1mm) was finally analyzed. Correlation was regarded as weak for absolute Pearson's r values in the range 0.2-0.39, moderate 0.4-0.59, strong 0.6-0.79, and very strong 0.8-1. When compared to VOLO, sequential plans exhibited a higher complexity degree, showing lower MCS and LG values and higher EM, PM and PI values. Differences were significant for 5/6 metrics (Wilcoxon P<0.05). The analysis of VOLO clinical plans highlighted different degrees of complexity among plans from different treatment sites, increasing from liver to prostate, pancreas, and finally, spine. Analysis of dependencies between pairs of metrics showed a very strong significant negative correlation (P<0.01), respectively, between MCS and PM (r=-0.97), and EM and LG (-0.82). Most of the remaining pairs showed moderate to strong correlations with the exception of PI, which showed weaker correlations with the other metrics. A moderate significant correlation was observed with GPR values both at (3%, 1mm) and (2%, 1mm) for all metrics except PI, which showed no correlation. Modulation complexity metrics were computed for CK MLC-based plans for the first time and some metrics' definitions were adapted to CK plans peculiarities. The computed metrics proved a useful tool for comparing optimization algorithms and for characterizing CK clinical plans. Strong and very strong correlations were found between some pairs of metrics. Some significant correlations were found with PSQA GPR, indicating that some indices are promising for rationalizing and reducing PSQA workload. Our results set the basis for evaluating new optimization algorithms and TPS versions in the future, as well as for comparing the complexity of CK MLC-based plans in multicenter and multiplatform comparisons.

Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Halcyon 2.0: Treatment Plans Comparison Based on RTOG 0938 Protocol.

PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment with a newly developed Varian HalcyonTM 2.0 machine by comparing radiotherapy plans with previously delivered CyberKnife G4 plans created with the previous version of CyberKnife Treatment Planning System Multiplan 4.6.1.MethodsFifteen previously treated prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment CyberKnife plans were re-planned retrospectively according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol on a HalcyonTM 2.0 machine with a prescription of 3625 cGy in five fractions.ResultsAll re-plans on a HalcyonTM 2.0 were able to meet the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol goals and constraints. The re-plans decreased the maximum dose to skin and urethra, mean doses to the bladder and rectum, and also improve the conformity index and the Planning Target Volume coverage. However, D1cc to the rectum, D1cc and D10% to the bladder increased with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) with the re-plans.ConclusionThe HalcyonTM 2.0 can generate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment prostate plans created based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol by delivering adequate coverage to the target while sparing healthy tissues.

Is stereotactic CyberKnife radiotherapy or multicatheter HDR brachytherapy the better option dosimetrically for accelerated partial breast irradiation?

ObjectiveTo compare dosimetrically the stereotactic CyberKnife (CK) therapy and multicatheter high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). MethodsTreatment plans of 25 patients treated with CK were selected, and additional plans using multicatheter HDR BT were created on the same CT images. The prescribed dose was 6.25/25 Gy in both plans to the target volume (PTV). The dose-volume parameters were calculated for both techniques and compared. ResultsThe D90 total dose of the PTV was significantly lower with CK than with HDR BT, D90 was 25.7 Gy, and 27.0 Gy (p < 0.001). However, CK plans were more conformal than BT, COIN was 0.87, and 0.81 (p = 0.0030). The V50 of the non-target breast was higher with CK than with BT: 10.5% and 3.3% (p = 0.0010), while there was no difference in the dose of the contralateral breast and contralateral lung. Dose to skin, ipsilateral lung, and ribs were higher with CK than with BT: D1 was 20.6 Gy vs. 11.5 Gy (p = 0.0018) to skin, 11.4 Gy vs. 9.6 Gy (p = 0.0272) to ipsilateral lung and 18.5 Gy vs. 12.3 Gy (p = 0.0013) to ribs, while D0.1 to heart was lower, 3.0 Gy vs. 3.2 Gy (p = 0.0476), respectively. ConclusionsMulticatheter HDR BT yields more advantageous plans than stereotactic CyberKnife treatment in accelerated partial breast irradiation, except in terms of dose conformality and the dose to the heart. There was no difference in the dose of the contralateral breast and lung.

Dosimetric evaluation of a rotating gamma-ray system for stereotactic body radiation therapy

Gamma-ray stereotactic radiosurgery systems available commercially contain either stationary or rotational source configuration. Rotational systems reduce the number of sources utilized and can also provide beneficial dosimetric properties. In this study, we explore the dosimetric advantage of a novel rotating gamma-ray design for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as compared to the well-established CyberKnife system. CybeRay (OUR United Corp., Xian, China) is a rotating gamma-ray system (RGS). Its treatment head can rotate 360° in the axial plane and swing 35° in the superior direction. It includes 13 Co-60 sources focusing on the isocenter. The RT Pro planning system (Prowess, Concord, CA) was used for CybeRay treatment planning, while the Multiplan software (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA) was used for CyberKnife treatment planning. Twelve SBRT patients previously treated with CyberKnife were re-planned for CybeRay, and their treatment plans were compared based on isodose distributions, dose volume histograms, conformity index (CI), and the estimated treatment time. The planning target volume ranged from 4.4 to 124.2 cc. Both treatment systems provided excellent SBRT plans that meet our clinical acceptance criteria. The mean value of CI was 1.25 for both CyberKnife and CybeRay (p = 0.03). The estimated treatment delivery time for the CyberKnife plans ranged from 13 to 53 min as compared to 6 to 54 min with CybeRay (p = 0.02). CybeRay was superior concerning peripheral doses appearing as excessive isodose lines extending to distal normal tissues. The new CybeRay machine showed promising dosimetric capabilities for stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy of extra- and intra-cranial lesions.

Conventionally fractionated large volume head and neck re-irradiation using multileaf collimator-based robotic technique: A feasibility study

PurposeTo report on the feasibility and performance of conventionally fractionated multileaf collimator (MLC)-based robotic stereotactic body re-irradiation of the head and neck region using MLC-based Cyberknife (CK) technology. MethodsPatients treated for recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (HNC) with curative proton therapy to a target volume > 30 cm3 between 2011 and 2015 were included. MLC-based CK plans were generated using the CK M6 InCise2 MLC system. Dose statistics from MLC-based CK plans were compared to proton beam therapy (PBT) plans according to the following metrics: target coverage, target homogeneity index, gradient index, Paddick conformity index (CI), prescription isodose volume (PIV), treatment time (tTime) for one fraction as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR). Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare dose metrics. ResultsEight patients were included; the tumor sites included: salivary glands, pharynx (oropharynx, hypopharynx and retropharynx) and sinonasal cavities. Five of 8 patients were treated with multifield optimisation intensity modulated proton therapy, 3 were treated with passive scattering proton therapy. Median dose was 67 Gy (range 60–70) in 32 fractions (range 30–35). The median high-dose planning target volume (PTV) was 45.4 cm3 (range 2.4 – 130.2 cm3) and the median elective PTV was 91.9 cm3 (range 61.2 – 269.7 cm3). Overall, the mean target coverage (mean 98.3% vs. 96.2% for CK vs. PBT, respectively), maximum dose to PTV (mean 111% vs. 111%, p = 0.2) and mean dose to PTV (mean 104% vs. 104%) were similar across modalities. Highly conformal plans were achieved with both modalities, but mean CI was better with PBT (0.5 vs. 0.6 for CK vs. PBT, p = 0.04). Homogeneity and gradient indexes were similar between the 2 modalities; mean tTime with PBT and CK was 17 vs. 18 min, respectively (p = 0.7). Case-based study revealed that CK and PBT plans allowed for excellent sparing of OAR, with some clinical scenarios associated with better performance of CK while others with better performance of PBT. ConclusionOur study has demonstrated the dosimetric performance of large volume head and neck re-irradiation using MLC-based CK in various clinical scenarios. While conformity was generally better achieved with PBT, MLC-based CK allowed for high dose gradient leading to rapid dose drop-off and sparing of OAR. Conventionally fractionated MLC-based CK could be a competitive alternative in large volume head and neck re-irradiation that deserves further investigation in the clinical setting.

Large-scale dosimetric assessment of Monte Carlo recalculated doses for lung robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Owing to its short computation time and simplicity, the Ray-Tracing algorithm (RAT) has long been used to calculate dose distributions for the CyberKnife system. However, it is known that RAT fails to fully account for tissue heterogeneity and is therefore inaccurate in the lung. The aim of this study is to make a dosimetric assessment of 219 non-small cell lung cancer CyberKnife plans by recalculating their dose distributions using an independent Monte Carlo (MC) method. For plans initially calculated by RAT without heterogeneity corrections, target coverage was found to be significantly compromised when considering MC doses. Only 35.4% of plans were found to comply to their prescription doses. If the normal tissue dose limits were respected in the treatment planning dose, the MC recalculated dose did not exceed these limits in over 97% of the plans. Comparison of RAT and recalculated-MC doses confirmed the overestimation of RAT doses observed in previous studies. An inverse correlation between the RAT/MC dose ratio and the target size was also found to be statistically significant (p<10-4), consistent with other studies. In addition, the inaccuracy and variability in target coverage incurred from dose calculations using RAT without heterogeneity corrections was demonstrated. On average, no clinically relevant differences were observed between MC-calculated dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for all tissues investigated (⩽1%). Patients receiving a dose D95% larger than 119 Gy in EQD210 (or ≈52 Gy in 3 fractions) as recalculated by MC were observed to have significantly superior loco-regional progression-free survival rates (p=0.02) with a hazard ratio of 3.45 (95%CI: 1.14–10.5).

ZAP-X: A Novel Radiosurgical Device for the Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia

IntroductionThe treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is one of the most demanding of all radiosurgery procedures, requiring accurate delivery and sharp dose fall off. ZAP-X®, a new, innovative frameless radiosurgical device, maybe an attractive platform for the treatment of TN and other functional brain disorders. Here, we compared the dosimetry of ZAP-X plans for a single patient to that generated by a well-established dedicated radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife.MethodsRadiosurgery plans that delineated the cranial nerve from a single patient’s fused computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MR) data set were planned on both the ZAP-X and CyberKnife, with the latter serving as a validated benchmark. The same target and treatment planning constraints were applied. Plans were evaluated by a physician with experience treating TN and a medical physicist. The ZAP-X treatment plan used two isocenters delivered through 4-mm collimators based on a non-isocentric plan that delivered 29,441 MU through 81 beams. The CyberKnife plans used a 5-mm collimator for a non-isocentric plan that delivered 17,880 MU through 88 beams.ResultsBased on visual inspection, the isodose volumes covered by ZAP-X and CyberKnife were similar at the prescription isodose (70% and 80%, respectively, with a maximum dose (Dmax) of 7500 cGy. The conformality index was better for the CyberKnife as compared to ZAP-X. However, the irradiated volumes were smaller at the 50%, 20%, and 10% isodoses for ZAP-X (0.12 cc, 0.57 cc, and 1.69 for ZAP-X; 0.18 cc, 0.91 cc, and 3.41 cc for CyberKnife). In particular, the 20% and 10% isodose volumes were much smaller for ZAP-X, especially on the axial and sagittal planes.ConclusionsZAP-X treatment planning for TN compares favorably with equivalent planning on CyberKnife. The brain volumes containing the 20% and 10% isodoses are smaller using ZAP-X, thus relatively sparing critical structures close to the target, including the Gasserian ganglion and brainstem. This feature could be of clinical relevance by potentially reducing treatment-related complications.

Margin-Free Fractionated Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors

PurposeConventional radiation therapy (RT) to pediatric brain tumors exposes a large volume of normal brain to unwarranted radiation causing late toxicity. We hypothesized that in well demarcated pediatric tumors lacking microscopic extensions, fractionated stereotactic RT (SRT), without target volume expansions, can reduce high dose normal tissue irradiation without affecting local control. Methods and MaterialsBetween 2008 and 2017, 52 pediatric patients with brain tumors were treated using the CyberKnife (CK) with SRT in 180 to 200 cGy per fraction. Thirty representative cases were retrospectively planned for intensity modulated RT (IMRT) with 4-mm PTV expansion. We calculated the volume of normal tissue within the high or intermediate dose region adjacent to the target. Plan quality and radiation dose-volume dosimetry parameters were compared between CK and IMRT plans. We also reported overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and local control. ResultsTumors included low-grade gliomas (n = 28), craniopharyngiomas (n = 16), and ependymomas (n = 8). The volumes of normal tissue receiving high (≥80% of prescription dose or ≥40 Gy) or intermediate (80% > dose ≥50% of the prescription dose or 40 Gy > dose ≥25 Gy) dose were significantly smaller with CK versus IMRT plans (P < .0001 for all comparisons). With a median follow-up of 3.7 years (range, 0.1-9.0), 3-year local control was 92% for all patients. Eight failures occurred: 1 craniopharyngioma (marginal), 2 ependymomas (both in-field), and 5 low-grade gliomas (2 in-field, 1 marginal, and 2 distant). ConclusionsFractionated SRT using CK without target volume expansion appears to reduce the volume of irradiated tissue without majorly compromising local control in pediatric demarcated brain tumors. These results are hypothesis generating and should be tested and validated in prospective studies.

Influence of CyberKnife Prescription Isodose Line on the Discrepancy of Dose Results Calculated by the Ray Tracing and Monte Carlo Algorithms for Head and Lung Plans: A Phantom Study.

Incorporation of the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm in optimizing CyberKnife (CK) plans is cumbersome, and early models unconfgured MC calculations, therefore, this study investigated algorithm-based dose calculation discrepancies by selecting different prescription isodose lines (PIDLs) in head and lung CK plans. CK plans were based on anthropomorphic phantoms. Four shells were set at 2-60 mm from the target, and the constraint doses were adjusted according to the design strategy. After optimization, 30%-90% PIDL plans were generated by ray tracing (RT). In the evaluation module, CK plans were recalculated using the MC algorithm. Therefore, the dosimetric parameters of different PIDL plans based on the RT and MC algorithms were obtained and analyzed. The discrepancies (mean±SD) were 3.72%±0.31%, 3.40%±0.11%, 3.47%±0.32%, 0.17%±0.11%, 0.64%±3.60%, 7.73%±1.60%, 14.62%±3.21% and 10.10%±1.57% for D1%, D(mean), D98% and coverage of the PTV, DGI, V5, V3 and V1 in the head plans and -6.32%±1.15%, -13.46%±0.98%, -20.63%±2.25%, -34.78%±25.03%, 122.48%±175.60%, -12.92%±5.41%, 3.19%±4.67% and 7.13%±1.56% in the lung plans, respectively. The following parameters were signifcantly correlated with PIDL: dD98% at the 0.05 level and dDGI, dV5 and dV3 at the 0.01 level for the head plans; dD98% at the 0.05 level and dD1%, dD(mean), dCoverage, dDGI, dV5 and dV3 at the 0.01 level for the lung plans. RT may be used to calculate the dose in CK head plans, but when the dose of organs at risk is close to the limit, it is necessary to refer to the MC results or to further optimize the CK plan to reduce the dose. For lung plans, the MC algorithm is recommended. For early models without the MC algorithm, a lower PIDL plan is recommended; otherwise, a large PIDL plan risks serious underdosage in the target area.

Comparing local control and distant metastasis in NSCLC patients between CyberKnife and conventional SBRT

Background and PurposePrevious literature suggests that the dose proximally outside the PTV could have an impact on the incidence of distant metastasis (DM) after SBRT in stage I NSCLC patients. We investigated this observation (along with local failure) in deliveries made by different treatment modalities: robotic mounted linac SBRT (CyberKnife) vs conventional SBRT (VMAT/CRT). Materials and methodsThis study included 422 stage I NSCLC patients from 2 institutions who received SBRT: 217 treated conventionally and 205 with CyberKnife. The dose behavior outside the PTV of both sub-cohorts were compared by analyzing the mean dose in continuous shells extending 1, 2, 3, …, 100 mm from the PTV. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed between the two sub-cohorts with respect to DM-free survival and local progression-free survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to the combined cohort (n = 422) with respect to DM incidence and local failure. ResultsThe shell-averaged dose fall-off beyond the PTV was found to be significantly more modest in CyberKnife plans than in conventional SBRT plans. In a 30 mm shell around the PTV, the mean dose delivered with CyberKnife (38.1 Gy) is significantly larger than with VMAT/CRT (22.8 Gy, p<10-8). For 95% of CyberKnife plans, this region receives a mean dose larger than the 21 Gy threshold dose discovered in our previous study. In contrast, this occurs for only 75% of VMAT/CRT plans. The DM-free survival of the entire CyberKnife cohort is superior to that of the 25% of VMAT/CRT patients receiving less than the threshold dose (VMAT/CRT<21Gy), with a hazard ratio of 5.3 (95% CI: 3.0–9.3, p<10-8). The 2 year DM-free survival rates were 87% (95% CI: 81%–91%) and 44% (95% CI: 28%–58%) for CyberKnife and the below-threshold dose conventional cohorts, respectively. A multivariable analysis of the combined cohort resulted in the confirmation that threshold dose was a significant predictor of DM(HR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15–0.55, p<10-3) when adjusted for other clinical factors. CyberKnife was also found to be superior to the entire VMAT/CRT with respect to local control (HR = 3.44, CI: 1.6–7.3). The 2-year local progression-free survival rates for the CyberKnife cohort and the VMAT/CRT cohort were 96% (95% CI: 92%–98%) and 88% (95% CI: 82%–92%) respectively. ConclusionsIn standard-of-care CyberKnife treatments, dose distributions that aid distant control are achieved 95% of the time. Although similar doses could be physically achieved by conventional SBRT, this is not always the case with current prescription practices, resulting in worse DM outcomes for 25% of conventional SBRT patients. Furthermore, CyberKnife was found to provide superior local control compared to VMAT/CRT.

Dosimetric and planning efficiency comparison for lung SBRT: CyberKnife vs VMAT vs knowledge-based VMAT

This is the first study that compared treatment plan quality and planning efficiency for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using CyberKnife (CK) Multiplan vs Varian Eclipse treatment planning systems, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and knowledge-based VMAT (KBP-VMAT). Thirteen lung SBRT patients treated with 50 to 55 Gy in 3 or 5 fractions were retrospectively included in this study. CK plans created with Multiplan V. 4.6.1 using 2 fixed circular cones were previously approved used for treatment. For the comparison, the computed tomography (CT) data sets and contours from the CK plans were used to generate VMAT and KBP-VMAT plans (University of California San Diego publicly-shared RapidPlan model) using Eclipse V. 13.7. Metrics used for the comparison of CK, VMAT, and KBP-VMAT plans included monitor units (MUs), conformity indices, dose heterogeneity, high-dose spillage, low-dose spillage, adjacent organs at risk (OAR) doses, and treatment planning time. One-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Tukey tests and paired t-tests were used to analyze the difference of these metrics corresponding to the different planning techniques. All of the 3 planning techniques achieved our clinical goals. With similar planning target volume (PTV) coverage, CK plans yielded the most MU (p< 0.001), the least dose homogeneity (p < 0.002), and the least D2cm dose (p < 0.001), while KBP-VMAT plans resulted in the most OAR sparing. No significant difference was found among other dosimetric metrics such as high-dose spillage, lung V20 and volume receiving 50% of the prescription dose. Compared to VMAT, KBP-VMAT improved OAR sparing (p < 0.05), but required significantly more MU (p < 0.001). KBP-VMAT was associated with the shortest planning time. Eclipse-based VMAT can achieve comparable plan quality for lung SBRT as CK, in a more efficient manner. RapidPlan can facilitate the planning process of KBP-VMAT, with potentially better OAR sparing but higher MU requirements. Further improvement for KBP-VMAT is likely achievable by developing site-specific patient models.

Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning

IntroductionStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife.Materials & methodsTen larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife’s large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units.ResultsPhantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences.ConclusionsGantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Analysis of different evaluation indexes for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy plans: conformity index, homogeneity index and gradient index

AbstractObjectiveThis study analyzed different definitions of the conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and gradient index (GI) used in evaluation of prostate cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy.MethodsA total of 10 patients with localized prostate cancer staged T1–T2a were selected randomly, from which two stereotactic body radiation therapy plans were designed with CyberKnife and EDGE systems for each patient based on the same images and contours. CI, HI, and GI with different definitions were calculated based on a dose‐volume histogram of treatment plans.ResultsFor four definitions of CI, the results showed that the values calculated by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Lomax and Scheib, and Van't Riet were closer to 1 for EDGE plans, except for that by the Saint‐Anne, Lariboisiere, and Tenon group. Meanwhile, CI values of Van't Riet et al were lower than other definitions, which showed high accuracy to describe the conformity between the target volume and prescribed isodose line. For five definitions of HI, CyberKnife plans showed lower values than EDGE plans. HI calculated based on the D2 (D5) and D98 (D95) were lower than that calculated by the Dmax to Dmin, whereas the standard deviation was higher than others. For the dose GI, the results of effective radius and modified GI showed that EDGE plans had a steeper dose fall‐off, which is inverse to the conventional GI.ConclusionsThese indexes can all be objective tools for the evaluation of plan quality. Our results showed better conformity of dose distribution and dose gradient for EDGE plans, but better uniformity for CyberKnife plans. The conformation number and S‐index were recommended to accurately describe the conformity and uniformity of dose distribution. The ∆Riso and modified GI were also recommended to calculate the dose gradient.

Conical beam geometry intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Most commonly in radiation therapy, treatments are delivered in a co-planar geometry. Numerous advantages have been reported of adding non-coplanar beams to the treatment plan. The aim of this study was to compare current state-of-the-art VMAT and CyberKnife treatment plans to that of a novel linac design developed at Stanford which utilizes a static conical beam arrangement that allows the inclusion of a full ring diagnostic CT with shared isocenter with the treatment beams.Four clinical cases, prostate, lung, head/neck, and pediatric brain, were selected and treatment plans were generated with 45° or 60° (to the longitudinal axis of the patient) conical beam IMRT and compared with co-planar 90° VMAT plans. Double cone, with beams entering from both superior and inferior directions, and single cone geometries were evaluated. Plans were optimized in RayStation using an in-house developed script to minimize operator bias between the different techniques. Non-coplanar CyberKnife IMRT plans for the pediatric and prostate case were optimized separately in MultiPlan and compared to conical geometry plans.In the prostate case, increased mean dose to the rectum (2.3–3.7 Gy) and bladder (9.5–14.5 Gy) but decreased dose to the femoral heads (femurs) (7.1–10 Gy) were found with the conical arrangement compared to 90° VMAT. Only minor dosimetric differences were found in the lung case, while selective sparing of organs at risk was found with 45° or 60° conical arrangement in the pediatric brain and head/neck cases. For the prostate case, a reduction in mean doses to the bladder and rectum of 6% (2 Gy) and 18% (5.2 Gy), respectively, was found when comparing the CyberKnife to the 60° conical plan, in favor of the CyberKnife plan, but with an increase in integral dose and reduced conformity. An increase in integral dose and reduced conformity was also found for the pediatric brain case when comparing CyberKnife and 60° conical plan. Minor benefits were found with double cone compared to single cone geometry.Comparable treatment plan quality could be achieved between conical beam arrangement and 90° (coplanar) VMAT and CyberKnife (non-coplanar) IMRT, demonstrating the promise of this novel beam geometry. The use of this beam geometry allows volumetric image-guidance with full ring imaging and a common isocenter for simultaneous treatment and imaging.

Dosimetric comparison of fractionated radiosurgery plans using frameless Gamma Knife ICON and CyberKnife systems with linear accelerator-based radiosurgery plans for multiple large brain metastases.

For patients with multiple large brain metastases with at least 1 target volume larger than 10 cm3, multifractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (MF-SRS) has commonly been delivered with a linear accelerator (LINAC). Recent advances of Gamma Knife (GK) units with kilovolt cone-beam CT and CyberKnife (CK) units with multileaf collimators also make them attractive choices. The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetry of MF-SRS plans deliverable on GK, CK, and LINAC and to discuss related clinical issues. Ten patients with 2 or more large brain metastases who had been treated with MF-SRS on LINAC were identified. The median planning target volume was 18.31 cm3 (mean 21.31 cm3, range 3.42-49.97 cm3), and the median prescribed dose was 27.0 Gy (mean 26.7 Gy, range 21-30 Gy), administered in 3 to 5 fractions. Clinical LINAC treatment plans were generated using inverse planning with intensity modulation on a Pinnacle treatment planning system (version 9.10) for the Varian TrueBeam STx system. GK and CK planning were retrospectively performed using Leksell GammaPlan version 10.1 and Accuray Precision version 1.1.0.0 for the CK M6 system. Tumor coverage, Paddick conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), and normal brain tissue receiving 4, 12, and 20 Gy were used to compare plan quality. Net beam-on time and approximate planning time were also collected for all cases. Plans from all 3 modalities satisfied clinical requirements in target coverage and normal tissue sparing. The mean CI was comparable (0.79, 0.78, and 0.76) for the GK, CK, and LINAC plans. The mean GI was 3.1 for both the GK and the CK plans, whereas the mean GI of the LINAC plans was 4.1. The lower GI of the GK and CK plans would have resulted in significantly lower normal brain volumes receiving a medium or high dose. On average, GK and CK plans spared the normal brain volume receiving at least 12 Gy and 20 Gy by approximately 20% in comparison with the LINAC plans. However, the mean beam-on time of GK (∼ 64 minutes assuming a dose rate of 2.5 Gy/minute) plans was significantly longer than that of CK (∼ 31 minutes) or LINAC (∼ 4 minutes) plans. All 3 modalities are capable of treating multiple large brain lesions with MF-SRS. GK has the most flexible workflow and excellent dosimetry, but could be limited by the treatment time. CK has dosimetry comparable to that of GK with a consistent treatment time of approximately 30 minutes. LINAC has a much shorter treatment time, but residual rotational error could be a concern.

Noncoplanar VMAT for Brain Metastases: A Plan Quality and Delivery Efficiency Comparison With Coplanar VMAT, IMRT, and CyberKnife.

Purpose:To compare plan quality and delivery efficiency of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy with coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife for multiple brain metastases.Methods:For 15 patients with multiple brain metastases, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in 3 fractions were generated. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans consisted of 4 noncoplanar arcs and 2 full coplanar arcs, respectively. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans consisted of 7 coplanar fields. CyberKnife plans used skull tracking to ensure accurate position. All plans were generated to cover 95% target volume with prescription dose. Gradient index, conformity index, normal brain tissue volume (V 3Gy − V 24Gy), monitor units, and beam on time were evaluated.Results:Gradient index was the lowest for CyberKnife (3.49 ± 0.65), followed by noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.21 ± 1.38), coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.87 ± 1.35), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (5.36 ± 1.98). Conformity index was the largest for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.87 ± 0.03), followed by coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.86 ± 0.04), CyberKnife (0.86 ± 0.07), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (0.85 ± 0.05). Normal brain tissue volume at high-to-moderate dose spreads (V 24Gy − V 9Gy) was significantly reduced in noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy over that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Normal brain tissue volume for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy was comparable with noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy at high-dose level (V 24Gy − V 15Gy) and larger than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level (V 12Gy − V 3Gy). Monitor units was highest for CyberKnife (28 733.59 ± 7197.85), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (4128.40 ± 1185.38), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (3105.20 ± 371.23), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2997.27 ± 446.84). Beam on time was longest for CyberKnife (30.25 ± 7.32 minutes), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (2.95 ± 0.85 minutes), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.61 ± 0.07 minutes), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.30 ± 0.23 minutes).Conclusion:For brain metastases far away from organs-at-risk, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy generated more rapid dose falloff and higher conformity compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy provided a comparable dose falloff with CyberKnife at high-dose level and a slower dose falloff than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans had less monitor units and shorter beam on time than CyberKnife plans.

Automated noncoplanar treatment planning strategy in stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple cranial metastases: HyperArc and CyberKnife dose distributions

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric effects of HyperArc-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and a robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife for multiple cranial metastases. In total, 11 cancer patients with multiple cranial metastases (3 to 5 tumors) treated with CyberKnife were examined. These patients were replanned using HyperArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA). HyperArc plan were designed using 4 noncoplanar arc single-isocenter VMAT in 6 MV flattening filter free mode for simulated delivery with the True beam STx (Varian). The prescription dose was 23 Gy at single fraction. Dosimetric differences and blinded clinician scoring differences were evaluated. Conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 0.60 ± 0.11 and 3.94 ± 0.74, respectively, for the CyberKnife plan and 0.87 ± 0.08 and 5.31 ± 1.42, respectively, for the HyperArc plan (p < 0.05). Total brain V12-gross tumor volumes (GTVs) for the CyberKnife and HyperArc plans were 5.26 ± 2.83 and 4.02 ± 1.71 cm3, respectively. These results indicate that HyperArc plan showed better CI and total brain V12-GTV, while CyberKnife plan showed better GI. A blinded physician scoring evaluation did not show significant differences between CyberKnife and HyperArc plans. The HyperArc-based SRS plan is comparable with the CyberKnife plan, suggesting a greater potential to emerge as a suitable tool for SRS of multiple brain metastases.