Image-Guided Localization Accuracy of Stereoscopic Planar and Volumetric Imaging Methods for Stereotactic Radiation Surgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Phantom Study

The purpose of this study is to describe the comprehensive commissioning process and initial clinical performance of the Vero linear accelerator, a new radiotherapy device recently installed at UT Southwestern Medical Center specifically developed for delivery of image‐guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). The Vero system utilizes a ring gantry to integrate a beam delivery platform with image guidance systems. The ring is capable of rotating ± 60° about the vertical axis to facilitate noncoplanar beam arrangements ideal for SABR delivery. The beam delivery platform consists of a 6 MV C‐band linac with a 60 leaf MLC projecting a maximum field size of 15×15 cm2 at isocenter. The Vero planning and delivery systems support a range of treatment techniques, including fixed beam conformal, dynamic conformal arcs, fixed gantry IMRT in either SMLC (step‐and‐shoot) or DMLC (dynamic) delivery, and hybrid arcs, which combines dynamic conformal arcs and fixed beam IMRT delivery. The accelerator and treatment head are mounted on a gimbal mechanism that allows the linac and MLC to pivot in two dimensions for tumor tracking. Two orthogonal kV imaging subsystems built into the ring facilitate both stereoscopic and volumetric (CBCT) image guidance. The system is also equipped with an always‐active electronic portal imaging device (EPID). We present our commissioning process and initial clinical experience focusing on SABR applications with the Vero, including: (1) beam data acquisition; (2) dosimetric commissioning of the treatment planning system, including evaluation of a Monte Carlo algorithm in a specially‐designed anthropomorphic thorax phantom; (3) validation using the Radiological Physics Center thorax, head and neck (IMRT), and spine credentialing phantoms; (4) end‐to‐end evaluation of IGRT localization accuracy; (5) ongoing system performance, including isocenter stability; and (6) clinical SABR applications.PACS number: 87.53.Ly

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

- 0.2

- 0.8 mm

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commissioning and initial stereotactic ablative radiotherapy experience with Vero

Solberg

Medin

Ramirez

et al. 2014

“…Treatment delivery methods have advanced to further improve conformality to complex geometric targets, while limiting dose to critical organs, such as dynamic conformal arc (DCA), Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . In the era of image guidance, numerous methods have been developed for stereotactic treatment delivery, including optical surface monitoring, in‐room CT, stereoscopic X‐ray imaging, ultrasound, and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . Image‐guided frameless treatment has been systematically studied and the positioning accuracy has been validated for use in stereotactic treatments 20 , 21 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the era of image guidance, numerous methods have been developed for stereotactic treatment delivery, including optical surface monitoring, in‐room CT, stereoscopic X‐ray imaging, ultrasound, and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . Image‐guided frameless treatment has been systematically studied and the positioning accuracy has been validated for use in stereotactic treatments 20 , 21 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of a novel treatment system for linear accelerator–based stereotactic radiosurgery

Song

Chin-Snyder

et al. 2015

Self Cite

The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties and accuracy of a novel treatment platform (Edge radiosurgery system) for localizing and treating patients with frameless, image‐guided stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Initial measurements of various components of the system, such as a comprehensive assessment of the dosimetric properties of the flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams for both high definition (HD120) MLC and conical cone‐based treatment, positioning accuracy and beam attenuation of a six degree of freedom (6DoF) couch, treatment head leakage test, and integrated end‐to‐end accuracy tests, have been performed. The end‐to‐end test of the system was performed by CT imaging a phantom and registering hidden targets on the treatment couch to determine the localization accuracy of the optical surface monitoring system (OSMS), cone‐beam CT (CBCT), and MV imaging systems, as well as the radiation isocenter targeting accuracy. The deviations between the percent depth‐dose curves acquired on the new linac‐based system (Edge), and the previously published machine with FFF beams (TrueBeam) beyond Dmax were within 1.0% for both energies. The maximum deviation of output factors between the Edge and TrueBeam was 1.6%. The optimized dosimetric leaf gap values, which were fitted using Eclipse dose calculations and measurements based on representative spine radiosurgery plans, were 0.700 mm and 1.000 mm, respectively. For the conical cones, 6X FFF has sharper penumbra ranging from 1.2−1.8 mm (80%‐20%) and 1.9−3.8 mm (90%‐10%) relative to 10X FFF, which has 1.2−2.2 mm and 2.3−5.1 mm, respectively. The relative attenuation measurements of the couch for PA, PA (rails‐in), oblique, oblique (rails‐out), oblique (rails‐in) were: −2.0%, −2.5%, −15.6%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 6X FFF and −1.4%, −1.5%, −12.2%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 10X FFF, respectively, with a slight decrease in attenuation versus field size. The systematic deviation between the OSMS and CBCT was −0.4±0.2 mm, 0.1±0.3 mm, and 0.0±0.1 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. The mean values and standard deviations of the average deviation and maximum deviation of the daily Winston‐Lutz tests over three months are 0.20±0.03 mm and 0.66±0.18 mm, respectively. Initial testing of this novel system demonstrates the technology to be highly accurate and suitable for frameless, linac‐based SRS and SBRT treatment.PACS number: 87.56.J‐

Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets

Gardner

Liu

et al. 2017

Self Cite

This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source size selections (0.50 mm, 0.75 mm, 1.00 mm, 1.25 mm, and 1.50 mm). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was varied in this analysis (three DLG values were tested for each scenario). We also tested two MLC leaf designs (standard and high‐definition MLC) and two delivery types for intracranial SRS (volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and dynamic conformal arc [DCA]). Thus, a total of 10 VMAT plans and 10 DCA plans were tested for each machine type (TrueBeam [standard MLC] and Edge [high‐definition MLC]). Each plan was mapped to a solid water phantom and dose was calculated with each iteration of source size and DLG value (15 total dose calculations for each plan). To measure the dose, Gafchromic film was placed in the coronal plane of the solid water phantom at isocenter. The phantom was localized via on‐board CBCT and the plans were delivered at planned gantry, collimator, and couch angles. The planned and measured film dose was compared using Gamma (3.0%, 0.3 mm) criteria. The vendor‐recommended 1.00 mm source size was suitable for TrueBeam planning (both VMAT and DCA planning) and Edge DCA planning. However, for Edge VMAT planning, the 0.50 mm source size yielded the highest passing rates. The difference in dose calculation among the source size variations manifested primarily in two regions of the dose calculation: (1) the shoulder of the high‐dose region, and (2) for small targets (volume ≤ 0.30 cc), in the central portion of the high‐dose region. Selection of a larger than optimal source size can result in increased blurring of the shoulder for all target volume sizes tested, and can result in central axis dose discrepancies in excess of 10% for target volumes sizes ≤ 0.30 cc. Our results indicate a need for evaluation of the source size when AcurosXB is used to model intracranial SRS delivery, and our methods represent a feasible process for many clinics to perform tuning of the AcurosXB source size parameter.