The Cyberknife: A Frameless Robotic System for Radiosurgery

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‐

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Song

Chin-Snyder

et al. 2015

“…CyberKnife (7) relies on more frequent position verification by orthogonal kilovoltage X‐rays. For intracranial (15) , (26) and spinal (14) , (15) , (27) radiosurgery, residual errors in patient position were sampled every 1 – 2 minutes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 1 – 7 ) Although SRS offers the possibility for fractionated treatments, is less invasive for patients, and is simpler logistically for the treatment team, the overall clinical accuracy of each system used for this radiosurgery method requires careful assessment. The two most important components of the assessment are the global hidden target test of inherent system accuracy (end‐to‐end test) and the evaluation of target motion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation of intrafraction motion and overall geometric accuracy of a frameless intracranial radiosurgery process

Feygelman

Walker

Chinnaiyan

et al. 2008

We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical accuracy of an image‐guided frameless intracranial radiosurgery system. All links in the process chain were tested. Using healthy volunteers, we evaluated a novel method to prospectively quantify the range of target motion for optimal determination of the planning target volume (PTV) margin. The overall system isocentric accuracy was tested using a rigid anthropomorphic phantom containing a hidden target. Intrafraction motion was simulated in 5 healthy volunteers. Reinforced head‐and‐shoulders thermoplastic masks were used for immobilization. The subjects were placed in a treatment position for 15 minutes (the maximum expected time between repeated isocenter localizations) and the six‐degrees‐of‐freedom target displacements were recorded with high frequency by tracking infrared markers. The markers were placed on a customized piece of thermoplastic secured to the head independently of the immobilization mask. Additional data were collected with the subjects holding their breath, talking, and deliberately moving. As compared with fiducial matching, the automatic registration algorithm did not introduce clinically significant errors (<0.3 mm difference). The hidden target test confirmed overall system isocentric accuracy of ≤1 mm (total three‐dimensional displacement). The subjects exhibited various patterns and ranges of head motion during the mock treatment. The total displacement vector encompassing 95% of the positional points varied from 0.4 mm to 2.9 mm. Pre‐planning motion simulation with optical tracking was tested on volunteers and appears promising for determination of patient‐specific PTV margins. Further patient study is necessary and is planned. In the meantime, system accuracy is sufficient for confident clinical use with 3 mm PTV margins.PACS number: 87.53.Ly

“…With the recent developments in frameless radiosurgery and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), a wider discussion on the topic has been triggered within the medical physics community 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . Small field measurements require the use of appropriate detectors, and must be performed with utmost attention to the setup accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving detector‐specific correction factors for rectangular small fields using a scintillator detector

Qin

Zhong

Snyder

et al. 2016

The goal of this study was to investigate small field output factors (OFs) for flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams on a dedicated stereotactic linear accelerator‐based system. From this data, the collimator exchange effect was quantified, and detector‐specific correction factors were generated. Output factors for 16 jaw‐collimated small fields (from 0.5 to 2 cm) were measured using five different detectors including an ion chamber (CC01), a stereotactic field diode (SFD), a diode detector (Edge), Gafchromic film (EBT3), and a plastic scintillator detector (PSD, W1). Chamber, diodes, and PSD measurements were performed in a Wellhofer water tank, while films were irradiated in solid water at 100 cm source‐to‐surface distance and 10 cm depth. The collimator exchange effect was quantified for rectangular fields. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the measured configurations were also performed using the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code. Output factors measured by the PSD and verified against film and MC calculations were chosen as the benchmark measurements. Compared with plastic scintillator detector (PSD), the small volume ion chamber (CC01) underestimated output factors by an average of ‐1.0%±4.9%(max.=‐11.7% for 0.5×0.5.2emcm2 square field). The stereotactic diode (SFD) overestimated output factors by 2.5%±0.4%(max.=3.3% for 0.5×1.2emcm2 rectangular field). The other diode detector (Edge) also overestimated the OFs by an average of 4.2%±0.9%(max.=6.0% for 1×1.2emcm2 square field). Gafchromic film (EBT3) measurements and MC calculations agreed with the scintillator detector measurements within 0.6%±1.8% and 1.2%±1.5%, respectively. Across all the X and Y jaw combinations, the average collimator exchange effect was computed: 1.4%±1.1% (CC01), 5.8%±5.4% (SFD), 5.1%±4.8% (Edge diode), 3.5%±5.0% (Monte Carlo), 3.8%±4.7% (film), and 5.5%±5.1% (PSD). Small field detectors should be used with caution with a clear understanding of their behaviors, especially for FFF beams and small, elongated fields. The scintillator detector exhibited good agreement against Gafchromic film measurements and MC simulations over the range of field sizes studied. The collimator exchange effect was found to be important at these small field sizes. Detector‐specific correction factors were computed using the scintillator measurements as the benchmark.PACS number(s): 87.56.Fc