Marco Malthaner

Assessment of patient setup errors in IGRT in combination with a six degrees of freedom couch

PURPOSE The range of patient setup errors in six dimensions detected in clinical routine for cranial as well as for extracranial treatments, were analyzed while performing linear accelerator based stereotactic treatments with frameless patient setup systems. Additionally, the need for re-verification of the patient setup for situations where couch rotations are involved was analyzed for patients treated in the cranial region. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 2185 initial (i.e. after pre-positioning the patient with the infrared system but before image guidance) patient setup errors (1705 in the cranial and 480 in the extracranial region) obtained by using ExacTrac (BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany) were analyzed. Additionally, the patient setup errors as a function of the couch rotation angle were obtained by analyzing 242 setup errors in the cranial region. Before the couch was rotated, the patient setup error was corrected at couch rotation angle 0° with the aid of image guidance and the six degrees of freedom (6DoF) couch. For both situations attainment rates for two different tolerances (tolerance A: ± 0.5mm, ± 0.5°; tolerance B: ± 1.0 mm, ± 1.0°) were calculated. RESULTS The mean (± one standard deviation) initial patient setup errors for the cranial cases were -0.24 ± 1.21°, -0.23 ± 0.91° and -0.03 ± 1.07° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.10 ± 1.17 mm, 0.10 ± 1.62 mm and 0.11 ± 1.29 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes, respectively. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.6% and 13.1% for tolerance B, respectively. For the extracranial cases the corresponding values were -0.21 ± 0.95°, -0.05 ± 1.08° and -0.14 ± 1.02° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.15 ± 1.77 mm, 0.62 ± 1.94 mm and -0.40 ± 2.15 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.0% and 3.1% for tolerance B, respectively. After initial setup correction and rotation of the couch to treatment position a re-correction has to be performed in 77.4% of all cases to fulfill tolerance A and in 15.6% of all cases to fulfill tolerance B. CONCLUSION The analysis of the data shows that all six axes of a 6DoF couch are used extensively for patient setup in clinical routine. In order to fulfill high patient setup accuracies (e.g. for stereotactic treatments), a 6DoF couch is recommended. Moreover, re-verification of the patient setup after rotating the couch is required in clinical routine.

Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6

Abstract Compared to a conventional linear accelerator, the Cyberknife (CK) is a unique system with respect to radiation protection shielding and the variety and number of non‐coplanar beams are two key components regarding this aspect. In this work, a framework to assess the direction distribution and modulation factor (MF) of clinically applied treatment beams of a CyberKnife M6 is developed. Database filtering options allow studying the influence of different parameters such as collimator types, treatment sites or different bunker sizes. A distribution of monitor units (MU) is generated by projecting treatment beams onto the walls, floor and ceiling of the CyberKnife bunker. This distribution is found to be highly heterogeneous and depending, among other parameters, on the bunker size. For our bunker design, 10%–13% of the MUs are delivered to the right and left wall, each. The floor receives more than 64% of the applied MUs, while the wall behind the patients head is not hit by primary treatment beams. Between 0% and 5% of the total MUs are delivered to the wall at the patients feet. This number highly depends on the treatment site, e.g., for extracranial patients no beams hit that wall. Collimator choice was found to have minor influence on the distribution of MUs. On the other hand, the MF depends on the collimator type as well as on the treatment site. The MFs (delivered MU/prescribed dose) for all treatments, all MLC treatments, cranial and extracranial treatments are 8.3, 6.4, 7.7, and 9.9 MU/cGy, respectively. The developed framework allows assessing and monitoring important parameters regarding radiation protection of a CK‐M6 using the actually applied treatment beams. Furthermore, it enables evaluating different clinical and constructional situations using the filtering options.

Independent Monte-Carlo dose calculation for MLC based CyberKnife radiotherapy

This work aims to develop, implement and validate a Monte Carlo (MC)-based independent dose calculation (IDC) framework to perform patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC)-based CyberKnife® (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) treatment plans. The IDC framework uses an XML-format treatment plan as exported from the treatment planning system (TPS) and DICOM format patient CT data, an MC beam model using phase spaces, CyberKnife MLC beam modifier transport using the EGS++ class library, a beam sampling and coordinate transformation engine and dose scoring using DOSXYZnrc. The framework is validated against dose profiles and depth dose curves of single beams with varying field sizes in a water tank in units of cGy/Monitor Unit and against a 2D dose distribution of a full prostate treatment plan measured with Gafchromic EBT3 (Ashland Advanced Materials, Bridgewater, NJ) film in a homogeneous water-equivalent slab phantom. The film measurement is compared to IDC results by gamma analysis using 2% (global)/2 mm criteria. Further, the dose distribution of the clinical treatment plan in the patient CT is compared to TPS calculation by gamma analysis using the same criteria. Dose profiles from IDC calculation in a homogeneous water phantom agree within 2.3% of the global max dose or 1 mm distance to agreement to measurements for all except the smallest field size. Comparing the film measurement to calculated dose, 99.9% of all voxels pass gamma analysis, comparing dose calculated by the IDC framework to TPS calculated dose for the clinical prostate plan shows 99.0% passing rate. IDC calculated dose is found to be up to 5.6% lower than dose calculated by the TPS in this case near metal fiducial markers. An MC-based modular IDC framework was successfully developed, implemented and validated against measurements and is now available to perform patient-specific QA by IDC.

SU-F-T-586: Pre-Treatment QA of InCise2 MLC Plans On a Cyberknife-M6 Using the Delta4 System in SBRT

PURPOSE Performing pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) with the Delta4 system (ScandiDos Inc., Madison, WI) is well established for linac-based radiotherapy. This is not true when using a Cyberknife (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) where, typically film-based QA is applied. The goal of this work was to test the feasibility to use the Delta4 system for pre-treatment QA for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using a Cyberknife-M6 equipped with the InCise2 multileaf collimator (MLC). METHODS In order to perform measurements without accelerator pulse signal, the Tomotherapy option within the Delta4 software was used. Absolute calibration of the Delta4 phantom was performed using a 10×10 cm2 field shaped by the InCise2 MLC of the Cyberknife-M6. Five fiducials were attached to the Delta4 phantom in order to be able to track the phantom before and during measurements. For eight SBRT treatment plans (two liver, two prostate, one lung, three bone metastases) additional verification plans were recalculated on the Delta4 phantom using MultiPlan. Dicom data was exported from MultiPlan and was adapted in order to be compatible with the Delta4 software. The measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using the gamma analysis of the Delta4 system. RESULTS All eight SBRT plans were successfully measured with the aid of the Delta4 system. In the mean, 98.0±1.9%, 95.8±4.1% and 88.40±11.4% of measured dose points passed the gamma analysis using a global dose deviation criterion of 3% (100% corresponds to the dose maximum) and a distance-to-agreement criterion of 3 mm, 2 mm and 1 mm, respectively, and a threshold of 20%. CONCLUSION Pre-treatment QA of SBRT plans using the Delta4 system on a Cyberknife-M6 is feasible. Measured dose distributions of SBRT plans showed clinically acceptable agreement with the corresponding calculated dose distributions.