CyberKnife Plans Research Articles

Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors: linac or robotic?

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used for spine treatments as it precisely delivers high radiation dose to tumors in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs). The goal of this work is to evaluate dosimetric properties of SBRT for spinal treatments with linear accelerators and CyberKnife (CK). Materials and methods: Plans of 27 patients, treated with CK for spine tumors, were also retrospectively optimized for linac-based (LB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). One nine-field IMRT plan and five VMAT plans were generated for each patient. The LB target volumes were uniformly expanded by 0.1 cm to accommodate for the uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to cover 90% of the target volumes with a prescription dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. If dose constraints to OARs were not met, the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy. Target dose conformity and falloff were evaluated with Paddick’s conformity (CI) and gradient (GI) indices. Results: PTV expansion resulted in a 31.5% volume increase in the LB plans. The three full-arcs VMAT (VMAT_3full) plans resulted in the best average CI(0.820) compared to CK(0.758) with worst average from one half-arcs VMAT (VMAT_1half) plans (0.747). Dose falloff was also superior with the VMAT_3full plans with an average GI value of 3.596, in comparison to CK(3.786) and IMRT(4.447). In 6 cases CK plans were unable to meet OAR constraints and the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy, compared to only 2 for VMAT_3full. Conclusion: Regardless of the larger target volumes, LB plans were comparable to CK plans. Conformity of target doses of the VMAT_3full plans were better than CK in all cases and dose fall-off was better 23 of 27 plans. Dose to OARs were lower for CK, but constraints met for all plans. The use of VMAT would reduce the treatment time.

Direct plan comparison of RapidArc and CyberKnife for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy

We compared the treatment planning performance of RapidArc (RA) vs. CyberKnife (CK) for spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Ten patients with spinal lesions who had been treated with CK were re-planned with RA, which consisted of two complete arcs. Computed tomography (CT) and volumetric dose data of CK, generated using the Multiplan (Accuray) treatment planning system (TPS) and the Ray-trace algorithm, were imported to Varian Eclipse TPS in Dicom format, and the data were compared with the RA plan by using an analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation. The optimized dose priorities for both the CK and the RA plans were similar for all patients. The highest priority was to provide enough dose coverage to the planned target volume (PTV) while limiting the maximum dose to the spinal cord. Plan quality was evaluated with respect to PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), high-dose spillage, intermediate-dose spillage (R50% and D2cm), and maximum dose to the spinal cord, which are criteria recommended by the RTOG 0631 spine and 0915 lung SBRT protocols. The mean CI’ SD values of the PTV were 1.11’ 0.03 and 1.17’ 0.10 for RA and CK (p = 0.02), respectively. On average, the maximum dose delivered to the spinal cord in CK plans was approximately 11.6% higher than that in RA plans, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). High-dose spillages were 0.86% and 2.26% for RA and CK (p = 0.203), respectively. Intermediate-dose spillage characterized by D2cm was lower for RA than for CK; however, R50% was not statistically different. Even though both systems can create highly conformal volumetric dose distributions, the current study shows that RA demonstrates lower high- and intermediate-dose spillages than CK. Therefore, RA plans for spinal SBRT may be superior to CK plans.

SU-E-T-305: Dosimetric Comparison of Cyberknife Versus Linac Based VMAT Stereotactic Treatment Planning for Localised Prostate Cancer

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric indices of Cyberknife versus Linac for localised prostate cancer Methods: In this study, twenty patients were taken from Cyberknife Multiplan TPS v 4.6.0. All these patients underwent hypo fractionated boost treatment for localised prostate cancer in Cyberknife with the prescription dose of 18Gy in 3 fractions. For each patient VMAT stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v 5.0 using Elekta beam modulator MLC machine for 6MV photon beam. The plans quality were evaluated by comparing dosimetry indices such that D95, D90, D5 for target volume and V100, V80, V50, V30 for critical organs. The p values were calculated for target and OAR to ascertain the significant differences. Results: For each case, D95 of target coverage was achieved with 100% prescription dose with p value of 0.9998. The p value for D90, D5 and V100 for linac and Cyberknife plans was 0.9938, 0.9918 and 0.9838 respectively. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder doses were significantly less in Cyberknife compared to linac plans. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder at V100 the p value is 0.2402, 0.002, and 0.1615 respectively. Other indices V80, V50 and V30 were comparable in both plans. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that both linac and Cyberknife plans were shown adequate target coverage, while in Cyberknife the treatment time is longer and more MUs to be delivered. However, better conformity, lesser doses to the critical organs and dose gradient outside target for localised prostate treatment were achieved in Cyberknife plans due to multiple non coplanar beam arrangements.

SU‐E‐T‐395: Evaluation of Multiple Brain Metastases Stereotactic Treatment Planning in Cyberknife Versus Linac

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate multiple brain metastases stereotactic treatment planning of Cyberknife versus linac using dose volume based indices.Methods:Fifteen multiple brain metastases patients were taken for this study from Cyberknife Multiplan TPSv4.6.0. All these patients underwent stereotactic treatment in Cyberknife. For each patient VMAT stereotactic treatment plan was generated in MONACO TPSv5.0 using Elekta beam modulator MLC and matched the delivered plan. A median dose of 8.5Gy(range 7–12Gy) per fraction was prescribed. Tumor volume was in the range of 0.06–4.33cc. Treatment plan quality was critically evaluated by comparing DVH indices such as D98, D95, CI, and HI for target volumes. Maximum point doses and volume doses were evaluated for critical organs.Results:For each case, target coverage of D98 was achieved with 100% prescription dose with SD of 0.29% and 0.41% in Linac and Cyberknife respectively. The average conformity index(CI) of 1.26±0.0796 SD for Cyberknife and 1.92±0.60SD for linac were observed. Better homogeneity Index (HI) of 1.17±0.09SD was observed in linac as compared to Cyberknife HI of 1.24±0.05SD.All the critical organ doses were well within tolerance limit in both linac and Cyberknife plans. There is no significant difference of maximum point doses for brainstem and optic chiasm. Treatment time and number of monitor units are more in Cyberknife compared to linac. The average volume receiving 12Gy in whole brain was 6% and 12% for Cyberknife and linac respectively. 1000cc of whole brain received 60% lesser dose in Linac compared to Cyberknife in all cases.Conclusion:The study shows that dosimetrically comparable plans are achievable Cyberknife and Linac. However, a better conformity, target coverage, lesser OAR dose is achieved with Cyberknife due to greater degrees of freedom with robotic gantry and smaller collimator for multiple targets.

SU‐E‐T‐330: Dosimetric Impact of Intrafraction Respiratory Motion On Lung SBRT Treatment Using Cyberknife 0‐View Tracking Mode

Purpose:To investigate the influence of respiratory motion on the delivered dose in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using Cyberknife (CK) 0‐View tracking mode.Methods:CT scans at inspiration and expiration of an anthropomorphic motion phantom were fused base on the spine and an internal target volume (ITV) was created. A 5mm expansion around the ITV resulted in the planning target volume. Three CK plans were generated in Accuray MultiPlan using Lung Optimization Tracking 0‐View technique with the minimum MU per beam set to (a) 5MU, (b) 15MU and (c) 30MU, respectively. Doses were calculated on the expiration CT using Monte‐Carlo algorithm. Each plan was delivered 5 times with a range of different starting phases in the respiratory cycle to assess the dose variation due to interplay effect. The delivered dose was measured with EBT3 Gafchromic film which was inserted in the moving target of the phantom. The target motion range is 3 cm in superior‐inferior (SI) direction with the breathing period of 5 seconds.Results:The gamma analysis (5%/2mm) of the dose with the films in the transverse plane resulted in average passing rate of 95.5±4.1%, 96.7±2.6%, and 96.2±2.5% for plan (a), (b), and (c), respectively. For the sagittal films, the average passing rate was 91.1±4.9%, 92.1±3.6%, and 92.3±2.9% for the three plans, respectively. The disagreement between measurement and dose calculations were mostly on the target edges in SI direction. The mean measured versus calculated dose differences at the edge of target in SI direction were (a) 3.9±4.8%, (b) 2.4±3.3%, and (c) 2.2±3.2% for the three plans, respectively.Conclusions:The plans with low‐MU beams (below 10MU) tend to cause slightly larger dose variation. However in terms of target coverage, the overall clinical dosimetric impact of the intrafraction respiratory motion in lung SBRT is insignificant when averaged over 3∼5 fractions.

SU‐E‐T‐253: Development of a GDPM Monte Carlo Based Quality Assurance Tool for Cyberknife

Purpose:To develop a 3D quality assurance (QA) tool for Cyberknife plans using a GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation package, gDPM. The developed QA tool will be used as a secondary check for Cyberknife treatment planning software (TPS) reported dose distributions.Methods:Phase space files of the 5, 7.5, 10, 15, and 60 mm iris cones were downloaded from IAEA phase‐space database. From the 60mm iris cone phase space file, we were able to generate raw phase space files for all other cones using a particle rejection method. The particles in the raw phase space files were binned with respect to the radial position and energy for commissioning. During the commissioning process, gDPM calculated percent depth dose and off‐center ratios which were compared to those measured in the Blue Phantom. The off‐axis data was measured with an SAD setup at depths of 15, 50, 100, 200, and 300 mm. At the commissioning stage, an optimization problem was solved to adjust the binned particles weights to minimize the difference between the calculated and measured ones. Commissioning validations will be performed by measuring point dose data of patient specific plans delivered to water phantoms. With commissioned phase space files, 3D patient‐specific dose distributions will be calculated and compared against TPS reported dose.Results:Beyond the initial buildup region, the root mean square difference between the calculated and measured percent depth dose differences was less than 0.5%. The full‐width half‐max data from the off‐axis ratio calculations was found to be within 0.1 mm of the measured data.Conclusion:Our current work showed excellent agreement between the gDPM calculated dose and the measured data for all cone sizes and types for the Cyberknife system. Implementation of a fast and accurate QA tool for patient specific plans will be feasible with this tool.

SU‐E‐T‐233: Cyberknife Versus Linac IMRT for Dose Comparision in Hypofractionated Hemi Larynx Irradiation of Early Stage True Vocal Cord Cancer: A Dosimetric Study

Purpose:To compare dosimetric data of patients treated for early‐stage larynx cancer on Cyberknife and Linac IMRT.Methods:Nine patients were treated with Cyberknife to a dose of 45 Gy in 10 fractions of the involved hemilarynx. The prescription dose provided at least 95% of PTV coverage. After Cyberknife treatment, the CT images and contours were sent to Pinnacle treatment planning system for IMRT planning on a regular SBRT linac with same dose prescription and constrains. Dose to target and normal tissue, including the arytenoids, cord, carotid arteries, thyroid, and skin, were analyzed using dose volume histograms.Results:For Cyberknife plan, the conformity indices are within 1.11–1.33. The average dose to the contralateral arytenoids for Cyberknife plans was 28.9±6.5Gy), which is lower than the same mean dose for IMRT plans (34.0±5.2 Gy). The average maximum dose to the ipsilateral and contralateral carotid artery were 20.6 ±9.1 Gy and 10.2±6.0 Gy respectively for Cybeknife comparing with 22.1±8.0 Gy and 12.0±5.1 Gy for IMRT. The mean dose to the thyroid was 3.6±2.2 Gy for Cyberknife and 3.4±2.4 Gy for IMRT. As shown in DVH, the Cyberknife can deliver less dose to the normal tissue which is close to target area comparing with IMRT Plans. However, IMRT plan's can give more sparing for the critical organs which is far away from the target area.Conclusion:We have compared the dosimetric parameters of Cyberknife and linac IMRT plans for patients with early‐stage larynx cancer. Both Cyberknife and IMRT plans can achieve conformal dose distribution to the target area. Cyberknife was able to reduce normal tissue dose in high doses region while IMRT plans can reduce the dose of the normal tissue at the low dose region. These dosimetric parameters can be used to guide future prospective protocols using SBRT for larynx cancer.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with robotic stereotactic radiation therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

PurposeTo compare volumetric modulated arc therapy of RapidArc with robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of CyberKnife in the planning and delivery of SBRT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment by analyzing dosimetric parameters.Materials and MethodsTwo radiation treatment plans were generated for 29 HCC patients, one using Eclipse for the RapidArc plan and the other using Multiplan for the CyberKnife plan. The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 3 fractions. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and normal tissue sparing in the RapidArc and the CyberKnife plans were analyzed.ResultsThe conformity index was 1.05 ± 0.02 for the CyberKnife plan, and 1.13 ± 0.10 for the RapidArc plan. The homogeneity index was 1.23 ± 0.01 for the CyberKnife plan, and 1.10 ± 0.03 for the RapidArc plan. For the normal liver, there were significant differences between the two plans in the low-dose regions of V1 and V3. The normalized volumes of V60 for the normal liver in the RapidArc plan were drastically increased when the mean dose of the PTVs in RapidArc plan is equivalent to the mean dose of the PTVs in the CyberKnife plan.ConclusionCyberKnife plans show greater dose conformity, especially in small-sized tumors, while RapidArc plans show good dosimetric distribution of low dose sparing in the normal liver and body.

Intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery with an adapted linear accelerator vs. robotic radiosurgery

Stereotactic radiosurgery with an adapted linear accelerator (linac-SRS) is an established therapy option for brain metastases, benign brain tumors, and arteriovenous malformations. We intended to investigate whether the dosimetric quality of treatment plans achieved with a CyberKnife (CK) is at least equivalent to that for linac-SRS with circular or micromultileaf collimators (microMLC). A random sample of 16 patients with 23 target volumes, previously treated with linac-SRS, was replanned with CK. Planning constraints were identical dose prescription and clinical applicability. In all cases uniform optimization scripts and inverse planning objectives were used. Plans were compared with respect to coverage, minimal dose within target volume, conformity index, and volume of brain tissue irradiated with ≥ 10 Gy. Generating the CK plan was unproblematic with simple optimization scripts in all cases. With the CK plans, coverage, minimal target volume dosage, and conformity index were significantly better, while no significant improvement could be shown regarding the 10 Gy volume. Multiobjective comparison for the irradiated target volumes was superior in the CK plan in 20 out of 23 cases and equivalent in 3 out of 23 cases. Multiobjective comparison for the treated patients was superior in the CK plan in all 16 cases. The results clearly demonstrate the superiority of the irradiation plan for CK compared to classical linac-SRS with circular collimators and microMLC. In particular, the average minimal target volume dose per patient, increased by 1.9 Gy, and at the same time a 14% better conformation index seems to be an improvement with clinical relevance.

Integral dose: Comparison between four techniques for prostate radiotherapy

AimComparisons of integral dose delivered to the treatment planning volume and to the whole patient body during stereotactic, helical and intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate. BackgroundMultifield techniques produce large volumes of low dose inside the patient body. Delivered dose could be the result of the cytotoxic injuries of the cells even away from the treatment field. We calculated the total dose absorbed in the patient body for four radiotherapy techniques to investigate whether some methods have a potential to reduce the exposure to the patient. Materials and methodsWe analyzed CyberKnife plans for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer. Five alternative plans for each patient were calculated with the VMAT, IMRT and TomoTherapy techniques. Alternative dose distributions were calculated to achieve the same coverage for PTV. Integral Dose formula was used to calculate the total dose delivered to the PTV and whole patient body. ResultsAnalysis showed that the same amount of dose was deposited to the treated volume despite different methods of treatment delivery. The mean values of total dose delivered to the whole patient body differed significantly for each treatment technique. The highest integral dose in the patient's body was at the TomoTherapy and CyberKnife treatment session. VMAT was characterized by the lowest integral dose deposited in the patient body. ConclusionsThe highest total dose absorbed in normal tissue was observed with the use of a robotic radiosurgery system and TomoTherapy. These results demonstrate that the exposure of healthy tissue is a dosimetric factor which differentiates the dose delivery methods.

SU-E-T-619: Comparison of CyberKnife Versus HDR (SAVI) for Partial Breast Irradiation

Purpose: Compare SAVI plans and CyberKnife (CK) plans for the same accelerated course. Methods and Materials: Three SAVI patients were selected. Pre-SAVI CTs were used for CK planning. All prescriptions are 3400cGy in 10 fractions BID. Max dose to skin and chestwall is 425cGy. For SAVI, PTV is a 1cm expansion of the cavity minus the cavity. For CK, CTV is a 1cm expansion of the seroma, with 2mm margin. CK plans are normalized to SAVI, so that in both cases the 323cGy isodose line covers the same percentage of PTV. For CK Fiducial/Synchrony tracking is used. Results: In the following, all doses are per fraction and results are averaged. The PTVs for the CK plans are 2.4 times larger than the corresponding SAVI PTVs. Nonetheless the CK plans meet all constraints and are superior to SAVI plans in several respects. Max skin dose for SAVI vs CK is 332cGy vs 337cGy. Max dose to chestwall is 252cGy vs 286cGy. The volume of lung over 125cGy is 6.4cc for SAVI and 2.5cc for CK. Max heart dose is 60cGy for SAVI and 83cGy for CK. The volume of PTV receiving over 425cGy is 49cc for SAVI and 1.3cc for CK. Max dose to contra-lateral breast is 16cGy for SAVI and 4.5cGy for CK. Conclusion: CK PTVs are directly derived from the seroma. Corresponding SAVI PTVs tend to be much smaller. Dosimetrically, CK plans are equivalent or superior to SAVI plans despite the larger PTVs. Interestingly, the dose delivered to the lung is higher in SAVI vs CK. Fiducial/Synchrony tracking employed by CK might reduce errors in delivery compared to errors associated with shifts of the SAVI implant. In conclusion, when CK is an option for partial breast irradiation it may preferable to SAVI.

SU-E-T-355: A Comparative Study of Robotic and Linac-Based Stereotactitc Body Radiation Therapy for Lumbar Spinal Tumors

Purpose: Dosimetrically compare CyberKnife (CK) and linac-based (LB) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans for lumbar spine. Methods: Ten patient plans with lumbar spine tumors treated with CK were selected and retrospectively optimized using three techniques: CK, volumetric modulated arc (VMAT, three arcs), and 9-field-intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For the LB plans, the target volume was expanded by 1mm to accommodate additional uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to a prescription dose of 27Gy in 3 fractions covering 90% of the PTV. If the dose constraints to the cauda equina (cauda) were not met, the prescription dose was lowered to 24Gy. Parameters evaluated included Paddick Conformity-Index (CI) and Gradient-Index (GI). A two-tailed paired t-test was used to establish statistically significant differences in cauda doses. Results: Target volumes for LB plans were on average 38% larger. In terms of the indices, the closer the index values to unity the steeper the dose falloff and the higher the dose conformity to the target. The results showed that LB plans were in general statistically superior to CK plans. The IMRT plan showed the best average gradient index of 2.995, with VMAT and CK GI values of 3.699 and 5.476, respectively. Similarly, themore » same trend occurs with the average CI results: 0.821, 0.814, and 0.758, corresponding to IMRT, VMAT, and CK. Notably, in one CK plan the target dose was reduced to 24Gy to meet cauda constraints. Additionally, there was a statistically significant dose difference for the cauda between the CK and LB plans. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that LB plans for lumbar spine SBRT can be as effective or even better than CK plans. Despite the expansion of the target volume, the LB plans did not demonstrate dosimetric inferiority. The LB plans Resultin 2-to-3 fold decrease of treatment time.« less

SU-E-T-216: Intercomparison of CyberKnife and GammaKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery Treatment Plans for Metastatic Brain Tumors

Purpose: Over 40,000 patients are treated annually for metastatic brain tumors. A common method of treatment for these patients is stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Two commercially available options for treatment of SRS are the CyberKnife and GammaKnife. The purpose of this work was to perform a detailed comparison of the quality of the two techniques for the treatment of metastatic brain tumors using quantitative parameters. Methods: Six patients with small metastatic brain tumors (Range: 2.2cc– 14.6cc) that had previously received SRS treatment via the GammaKnife system were planned for equivalent treatment using the CyberKnife treatment planning system. To quantify the quality of the individual plans, the conformity number (CN), homogeneity index (HI) and gradient score index (GSI) were measured and compared. Both plans were created to delivery equivalent tumor coverage (Range: 10–14Gy) to the equivalent prescription volume. This was typically 99% prescription dose coverage to the GTV for both plans. Results: The calculated average HI was 0.497±0.155 versus 0.600±0.049, CI was 0.596±0.159 versus 0.865±0.022, and GSI was 41.4±17.8 versus 65.1±20.09 for CyberKnife vs GammaKnife respectively. Lower HI values imply a higher uniformity of dose throughout the target. CI ideally would be 1.000, and the closest to this value is to one, the better is the conformality to the treated site. High values for GSI implies a steeper dose falloff from the tumor to normal tissue and therefore is preferable. For this study statistical significance was achieved for CI, however due to the small sample size differences in HI and GSI were not statistically significant. Conclusion: This data suggests that SRS treatments on CyberKnife and GammaKnife are of similar quality, with Gamma Knife able to deliver a slightly more conformal plan for the treatment of brain metastases.

SU-E-T-125: Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Robotic Versus Traditional Linac Platform in Prostate Cancer

Purpose: Recent development of an MLC for robotic external beam radiotherapy has the potential of new clinical application in conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. This study offers a dosimetric comparison of IMRT plans using Cyberknife with MLC versus conventional linac plans. Methods: Ten prostate cancer patients treated on a traditional linac with IMRT to 7920cGy at 180cGy/fraction were randomly selected. GTVs were defined as prostate plus proximal seminal vesicles. PTVs were defined as GTV+8mm in all directions except 5mm posteriorly. Conventional IMRT planning was performed on Philips Pinnacle and delivered on a standard linac with CBCT and 10mm collimator leaf width. For each case a Cyberknife plan was created using Accuray Multiplan with same CT data set, contours, and dose constraints. All dosimetric data was transferred to third party software for independent computation of contour volumes and DVH. Delivery efficiency was evaluated using total MU, treatment time, number of beams, and number of segments. Results: Evaluation criteria including percent target coverage, homogeneity index, and conformity index were found to be comparable. All dose constraints from QUANTEC were found to be statistically similar except rectum V50Gy and bladder V65Gy. Average rectum V50Gy was lower for robotic IMRT (30.07%±6.57) versus traditional (34.73%±3.62, p=0.0130). Average bladder V65Gy was lower for robotic (17.87%±12.74) versus traditional (21.03%±11.93, p=0.0405). Linac plans utilized 9 coplanar beams, 48.9±3.8 segments, and 19381±2399MU. Robotic plans utilized 38.4±9.0 non-coplanar beams, 85.5±21.0 segments and 42554.71±16381.54 MU. The average treatment was 15.02±0.60 minutes for traditional versus 20.90±2.51 for robotic. Conclusion: The robotic IMRT plans were comparable to the traditional IMRT plans in meeting the target volume dose objectives. Critical structure dose constraints were largely comparable although statistically significant differences were found in favor of the robotic platform in terms of rectum V50Gy and bladder V65Gy at a cost of 25% longer treatment time.

Treatment plan comparison between stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer: Non-isocentric CyberKnife versus isocentric RapidArc

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and dose distribution of two different stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques, isocentric RapidArc (RA) and non-isocentric CyberKnife (CK), for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. MethodsTwo groups of patients (Groups 1 and 2 with ten patients per group) treated with CK were re-planned with RA. The patients were grouped according to the rectum constraint used (Group1, maximum dose for rectum; Group 2, dose–volume histogram for rectum). The prescription dose was 37.5 Gy in five fractions. The two SBRT techniques were compared by target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and dose distribution parameters. Monitor units (MUs) and the delivery time were likewise compared to assess delivery efficiency. ResultsThe RA plans consistently exhibited superior PTV coverage and better rectum sparing at low doses in the both groups. The conformity and heterogeneity indices of the RA plans were better than the CK plans. Additionally, the RA plans resulted in fewer low-dose regions, lower MUs, and faster delivery times than the CK plans. ConclusionsThe good dosimetric distribution and shorter delivery time make RA an attractive SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Comparing Gamma Knife and CyberKnife in patients with brain metastases

The authors compared the relative dosimetric merits of Gamma Knife (GK) and CyberKnife (CK) in 15 patients with 26 brain metastases. All patients were initially treated with the Leksell GK 4C. The same patients were used to generate comparative CK treatment plans. The tissue volume receiving more than 12 Gy (V12), the difference between V12 and tumor volume (V12net), homogeneity index (HI), and gradient indices (GI25, GI50) were calculated. Peripheral dose falloff and three conformity indices were compared. The median tumor volume was 2.50 cm3 (range, 0. 044‐19.9). A median dose of 18 Gy (range, 15‐22) was prescribed. In GK and CK plans, doses were prescribed to the 40‐50% and 77‐92% isodose lines, respectively. Comparing GK to CK, the respective parametric values (median±standard deviation) were: minimum dose (18.2±3.4 vs. 17.6±2.4 Gy, p=0.395); mean dose (29.6±5.1 vs.20.6±2.8 Gy, p<0.00001); maximum dose (40.3±6.5 vs.22.7±3.3 Gy, p<0.00001); and HI (2.22±0.19 vs. 1.18±0.06, p<0.00001). The median dosimetric indices (GK vs. CK, with range) were: RTOG_CI, 1.76 (1.12‐4.14) vs. 1.53 (1.16‐2.12), p=0.0220; CI, 1.76 (1.15‐4.14) vs. 1.55 (1.18‐2.21), p=0.050; nCI, 1.76 (1.59‐4.14) vs. 1.57 (1.20‐2.30), p=0.082; GI50, 2.91 (2.48‐3.67) vs. 4.90 (3.42‐11.68), p<0.00001; GI25, 6.58 (4.18‐10.20) vs. 14.85 (8.80‐48.37), p<0.00001. Average volume ratio (AVR) differences favored GK at multiple normalized isodose levels (p<0.00001). We concluded that in patients with brain metastases, CK and GK resulted in dosimetrically comparable plans that were nearly equivalent in several metrics, including target coverage and minimum dose within the target. Compared to GK, CK produced more homogenous plans with significantly lower mean and maximum doses, and achieved more conformal plans by RTOG_CI criteria. By GI and AVR analyses, GK plans had sharper peripheral dose falloff in most cases.PACS number: 89.20.‐a

SU‐E‐T‐173: Patient‐Specific IMRT QA for Large Volume CyberKnife Plans Using MatriXX

Purpose: The recent introduction of CyberKnife M6 FM and FIM models expands the field of robotic radiotherapy into the domain of large volume tumors. The increased complexity of CyberKnife plans with MLC requires at least 2D dosimetric verification in a phantom before the patient is treated. We describe a protocol for IMRT QA using an array of ionization chambers (MatriXX, IBA) for IMRT QA of large‐target CyberKnife plans. Methods: We developed post‐processing software that reads the dose frame sequence recorded by the MatriXX and applies a number of CyberKnife‐specific correction factors to each frame. Individual beams are located within the frames and angular correction factors are applied depending on beam angle. In addition, the background evolution is tracked in the “beam‐off” frames which are subsequently subtracted from the “beam‐on” frames according to a predictive model. Results: The clinical passing rates are significantly improved when the per‐frame analysis software was introduced in our IMRT QA procedure. We present a number of cases, for which the passing rates are increased from an average 80% in the raw data to 95% after correction. The MatriXX is found to have additional advantages, for it allows vertex beams, which are often part of the predefined paths in the planning software. Conclusion: The per‐beam correction strategy described in this work is found to improve the passing rates of CyberKnife plans designed for target volumes in excess of 40cc. Such large target volumes will be commonly treated with the new MLC enabled CyberKnife robot. Point dose verification remains a viable option for smaller targets, for which the spatial averaging in the MatriXX chambers hinders the performance of the device.

Optimization of normalized prescription isodose selection for stereotactic body radiation therapy: Conventional vs robotic linac

Although modern technology has allowed for target dose escalation by minimizing normal tissue dose, the dose delivered to a tumor and surrounding tissues still depends largely on the inherent characteristics of the radiation delivery platform. This work aims to determine the optimal prescription isodose line that minimizes normal tissue irradiation for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for a conventional linear accelerator and a robotic delivery platform. Spherical targets with diameters of 10, 20, and 30 mm were constructed in the lungs and liver of a computer based digital torso phantom which simulates respiratory and cardiac motion. Normal tissue contours included normal lung, normal liver, and a concentric 10 mm shell of normal tissue extending from the spherical target surface. For linac planning, noncoplanar, nonopposing three dimensional (3D) conformal beams were designed, and variable prescription isodose lines were achieved by varying the MLC block margin. For CyberKnife planning, variable prescription isodose lines were achieved by inverse planning. True 4D dose calculations were used for the moving target and surrounding tissue based on each of ten phases of a 4D CT dataset. Doses of 60 Gy in three fractions were prescribed to cover 95% of the target tumor. Commonly used conformality, dosimetric, and radiobiological indices for lung and liver SBRT were used to compare different plans and determine the optimally prescribed isodose line for each treatment platform. For linac plans, the average optimal prescription isodose line based on all indices evaluated occurred between 59% and 69% for lung tumors and between 67% and 77% for liver tumors depending on the tumor size. CyberKnife plans had average optimal prescription isodose lines occurring between 40% and 48% for lung tumors and between 41% and 42% depending on the tumor size. However, prescription isodose lines under 50% are not advised to prevent large heterogeneous dose distributions within the target. The choice of prescription isodose line was shown to have a significant impact on parameters commonly used as constraints for lung and liver SBRT treatment planning for both linac-based and CyberKnife delivery platforms. By methodically choosing the prescription isodose line, normal tissue toxicities from SBRT may be reduced.

Dosimetric comparison of Stereotactic body radiotherapy and Intensity modulated radiotherapy to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in organ confined prostate cancer

We compared the dose conformity, homogeneity, dose to organs at risk, and remaining volume at risk of two radiotherapy techniques --stereotactic body radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in organ-confined prostate cancer. Eleven successive patients treated on the CyberKnife stereotactic robotic radiosurgical system were taken up for this study. The CT images, including the structures contoured, were imported through DICOM RT from the Multiplan (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) treatment planning system to the Plato Sunrise treatment planning system (Nucletron, The Netherlands) for creating IMRT treatment plans on the Linac. Treatment planning was done for five fractions, each fraction prescribed to a dose of 7.25 Gy to the planning target volume. Dose volume histograms were generated for the CyberKnife and Linac treatments for comparison. As per our protocol, a plan was considered adequate if at least 95% of planning target volume received the prescribed dose and satisfied the following constraints: a) volume of the rectum receiving 36Gy (V36) to < 1cc and b) volume of the bladder receiving 37Gy (V37) to < 10cc. Both the treatment techniques plans resulted in adequate planning target volume coverage (p value for D95, D90, D5, and V100% was 0.402, 0.97, 0.013, and 0.012, respectively). CyberKnife plans were more conformal (p value 0.001). Remaining volume at risk dose was significantly less in all CyberKnife plans at [V100% (p=0.01), V95% (p=.004), V90% (p=.001), V80% (p=0.02), V70 (p=0.03), V40% (p=0.021), and V30% (p=0.001)] dose levels. The mean dose to rectum was lower in the CyberKnife plans (The p value for V100%, V80%, V50% and V30% dose levels was 0.02, 0.0001, 0.0002, and 0.12, respectively). Categories: Radiation Oncology, Urology

Dosimetric investigation of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using CyberKnife

To investigate the dosimetric feasibility of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using CyberKnife. Fourteen previously treated patients with early-stage breast cancer were selected for a retrospective study. Six of these patients had been treated to 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions in a phase III accelerated partial breast trial and the rest of the patients were treated to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. In this planning study, the guidelines in the protocol for the phase III partial breast trial were followed for organ delineation and CyberKnife planning. The achievable dosimetric parameters from all CyberKnife plans were compared to Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3D-CRT methods. The reproducibility of the dose delivery with and without respiratory motion was assessed through delivering a patient plan to a breast phantom. Different dose calculation algorithms were also compared between ray tracing and Monte Carlo. For all the patients in the study, the dosimetric parameters met the guidelines from the NSABP B39∕RTOG 0413 protocol strictly. The mean PTV volume covered by 100% of the prescription dose was 95.7 ± 0.7% (94.7%-97.1%). The mean maximal dose was 104 ± 2% of the prescription dose. The mean V(50%) and mean V(100%) to the ipsilateral normal breast were 23.1 ± 11.6% and 9.0 ± 5.8%, respectively. The conformity index of all plans was 1.14 ± 0.04. The maximum dose to the contralateral breast varied from 1.3 cGy to 111 cGy. The mean V(5%) and mean V(30%) to the contralateral and ipsilateral lungs were 1.0 ± 1.6% and 1.3 ± 1.2%, respectively. In our study, the mean V(5%) to the heart was 0.2 ± 0.5% for right-sided tumors and 9.4 ± 10.1% for left-sided tumors. Compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT planning, the PTV coverage from CyberKnife planning was the highest, and the ratio of V(20%) to V(100%) of the breast from CyberKnife planning was the smallest. The heart and lung doses were similar in all the techniques except that the V(5%) for the lung and heart in CyberKnife planning was slightly higher. The dosimetric feasibility of APBI using CyberKnife was investigated in this retrospective study. All the dosimetric parameters strictly met the guidelines from the NSABP B39∕RTOG 0413 protocol. With advanced real-time tracking capability, CyberKnife should provide better target coverage and spare nearby critical organs for APBI treatment.