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.

Background Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. The aim of the study is to establish DTRT path-finding strategies, demonstrate deliverability and dosimetric accuracy and compare DTRT to state-of-the-art VMAT for common head and neck (HN) cancer cases. Methods A publicly available library of seven HN cases was created on an anthropomorphic phantom with all relevant organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated. DTRT plans were generated with beam incidences minimizing fractional target/OAR volume overlap and compared to VMAT. Deliverability and dosimetric validation was carried out on the phantom. Results DTRT and VMAT had similar target coverage. For three locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinomas and one adenoid cystic carcinoma, mean dose to the contralateral salivary glands, pharynx and oral cavity was reduced by 2.5, 1.7 and 3.1 Gy respectively on average with DTRT compared to VMAT. For a locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, D0.03 cc to the ipsilateral optic nerve was above tolerance (54.0 Gy) for VMAT (54.8 Gy) but within tolerance for DTRT (53.3 Gy). For a laryngeal carcinoma, DTRT resulted in higher dose than VMAT to the pharynx and brachial plexus but lower dose to the upper oesophagus, thyroid gland and contralateral carotid artery. For a single vocal cord irradiation case, DTRT spared most OARs better than VMAT. All plans were delivered successfully on the phantom and dosimetric validation resulted in gamma passing rates of 93.9% and 95.8% (2%/2 mm criteria, 10% dose threshold). Conclusions This study provides a proof of principle of DTRT for common HN cases with plans that were deliverable on a C-arm linac with high accuracy. The comparison with VMAT indicates substantial OAR sparing could be achieved.

Background Vendor-independent Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation (IDC) for patient-specific quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) based CyberKnife treatments is used to benchmark and validate the commercial MC dose calculation engine for MLC based treatments built into the CyberKnife treatment planning system (Precision MC). Methods The benchmark included dose profiles in water in 15 mm depth and depth dose curves of rectangular MLC shaped fields ranging from 7.6 mm × 7.7 mm to 115.0 mm  × 100.1 mm, which were compared between IDC, Precision MC and measurements in terms of dose difference and distance to agreement. Dose distributions of three phantom cases and seven clinical lung cases were calculated using both IDC and Precision MC. The lung PTVs ranged from 14 cm3 to 93 cm3. Quantitative comparison of these dose distributions was performed using dose-volume parameters and 3D gamma analysis with 2% global dose difference and 1 mm distance criteria and a global 10% dose threshold. Time to calculate dose distributions was recorded and efficiency was assessed. Results Absolute dose profiles in 15 mm depth in water showed agreement between Precision MC and IDC within 3.1% or 1 mm. Depth dose curves agreed within 2.3% / 1 mm. For the phantom and clinical lung cases, mean PTV doses differed from − 1.0 to + 2.3% between IDC and Precision MC and gamma passing rates were > =98.1% for all multiple beam treatment plans. For the lung cases, lung V20 agreed within ±1.5%. Calculation times ranged from 2.2 min (for 39 cm3 PTV at 1.0 × 1.0 × 2.5 mm3 native CT resolution) to 8.1 min (93 cm3 at 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.0 mm3), at 2% uncertainty for Precision MC for the 7 examined lung cases and 4–6 h for IDC, which, however, is not optimized for efficiency but used as a gold standard for accuracy. Conclusions Both accuracy and efficiency of Precision MC in the context of MLC based planning for the CyberKnife M6 system were benchmarked against MC based IDC framework. Precision MC is used in clinical practice at our institute.