Single‐fraction spine SBRT end‐to‐end testing on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam, and CyberKnife treatment platforms using a novel anthropomorphic phantom

Abstract

Spine SBRT involves the delivery of very high doses of radiation to targets adjacent to the spinal cord and is most commonly delivered in a single fraction. Highly conformal planning and accurate delivery of such plans is imperative for successful treatment without catastrophic adverse effects. End–to‐end testing is an important practice for evaluating the entire treatment process from simulation through treatment delivery. We performed end‐to‐end testing for a set of representative spine targets planned and delivered using four different treatment planning systems (TPSs) and delivery systems to evaluate the various capabilities of each. An anthropomorphic E2E SBRT phantom was simulated and treated on each system to evaluate agreement between measured and calculated doses. The phantom accepts ion chambers in the thoracic region and radiochromic film in the lumbar region. Four representative targets were developed within each region (thoracic and lumbar) to represent different presentations of spinal metastases and planned according to RTOG 0631 constraints. Plans were created using the TomoTherapy TPS for delivery using the Hi·Art system, the iPlan TPS for delivery using the Vero system, the Eclipse TPS for delivery using the TrueBeam system in both flattened and flattening filter free (FFF), and the MultiPlan TPS for delivery using the CyberKnife system. Delivered doses were measured using a 0.007 cm3 ion chamber in the thoracic region and EBT3 GAFCHROMIC film in the lumbar region. Films were scanned and analyzed using an Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner in conjunction with FilmQAPro2013. All treatment platforms met all dose constraints required by RTOG 0631. Ion chamber measurements in the thoracic targets delivered an overall average difference of 1.5%. Specifically, measurements agreed with the TPS to within 2.2%, 3.2%, 1.4%, 3.1%, and 3.0% for all three measureable cases on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam (FFF), TrueBeam (flattened), and CyberKnife, respectively. Film measurements for the lumbar targets resulted in average global gamma index passing rates of 100% at 3%/3 mm, 96.9% at 2%/2 mm, and 61.8% at 1%/1 mm, with a 10% minimum threshold for all plans on all platforms. Local gamma analysis was also performed with similar results. While gamma passing rates were consistently accurate across all platforms through 2%/2 mm, treatment beam‐on delivery times varied greatly between each platform with TrueBeam FFF being shortest, averaging 4.4 min, TrueBeam using flattened beam at 9.5 min, TomoTherapy at 30.5 min, Vero at 19 min, and CyberKnife at 46.0 min. In spite of the complexity of the representative targets and their proximity to the spinal cord, all treatment platforms were able to create plans meeting all RTOG 0631 dose constraints and produced exceptional agreement between calculated and measured doses. However, there were differences in the plan characteristics and significant differences in the beam‐on delivery time between platforms. Thus, clinical judgment is required for each particular case to...

Benchmark Credentialing Results for NRG-BR001: The First National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Multiple Metastases

“…This study provides a unique opportunity to compare/contrast treatment delivery systems in a multi-institutional setting for a challenging planning case. Gallo et al (13) showed that various treatment systems could provide accurate SBRT targeting but with wide variability in treatment time. The current study demonstrates that plans could successfully credential while providing similar conformity using a variety of treatment planning and delivery systems.…”

“…Although the majority of plans used intensity modulation, a single institution utilized 3DCRT to successfully credential with comparable conformity metrics. The infrequent use of 3DCRT may have been limited by the significant time commitment required to produce a complex treatment plan without an inverse optimization algorithm (13). …”

Inverse treatment planning for spinal robotic radiosurgery: an international multi‐institutional benchmark trial

“…While our planning guidelines are specific for spinal robotic radiosurgery, our presented method may also be useful for providing reference information for quality improvement and quality control and enabling further investigation of homogenization and standardization of radiotherapy and radiosurgery treatment planning. While contouring guidelines have been widely accepted (e.g., for spine SBRT (24) ) and treatment planning studies using different radiation devices or treatment delivery benchmark studies (e.g., for spine SBRT (25) ) are common, the quality of radiotherapy treatment planning has been only rarely investigated and often only on a national level 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 . Since treatment planning is strongly user‐dependent and quality control of treatment planning is largely lacking, this study was our first approach to provide a method for quality comparison and to define planning guidelines, in our first case for spinal robotic radiosurgery.…”

Robotic radiosurgery system patient‐specific QA for extracranial treatments using the planar ion chamber array and the cylindrical diode array

“…Gallo et al (7) utilized EBT film for CyberKnife SBRT plan delivery measurement and reported a 93.3% to 98.9% and 96.1% to 99.5% gamma passing rates for $2\%/2 \text{mm}$ and $3\%/3 \text{mm}$ criteria, respectively. In this work, we evaluated the feasibility of electronic 2D detector arrays for CyberKnife measurements.…”

“…It was also investigated by different groups for patient‐specific QA for treatment with IMRT 4 , 5 and CyberKnife, 6 , 7 especially when the radiochromic film became available for external beam therapy (EBT). However, it is still not widely used in clinic for routine patient‐specific QA because of the handing and the sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility dependency on the proper choice and calibration of the densitometry system.…”