Monte Carlo and ray tracing algorithms in the cyberknife treatment planning for lung tumours- comparison and validation.

Multiplan treatment planning system, used with Cyberknife system, provides the option of using either the ray tracing algorithm or the Monte Carlo algorithm for the final dose calculation. In order to compare and validate the dose calculations of these algorithms, especially in a heterogeneous medium, a lung phantom study was carried out. Validation has been done with thermoluminiscent dosimetry (TLD) using lithium fluoride rods for the point doses and film dosimetry using EBT2 films for the dose distribution. In the point dose measurements, an agreement of 100.1+2.6 % (1 SD) is observed with the Monte Carlo dose calculation, whereas it is only 91.2+ 3.2% (1 SD) with the ray tracing calculation. On subjecting the dose distributions from irradiated EBT2 films for validation of Monte Carlo calculation MC , over 96% of the pixels pass the gamma criteria of 3mm and 3cGy.On analyzing the dose profiles from EBT2 films and the corresponding profiles from the plan calculated using the Monte Carlo algorithm, it is seen that the maximum distance-to-agreement values are within the 3mm criteria set, whereas the maximum values are as high as 8 mm when compared with plan calculated using ray tracing algorithm. The results of the actual measurements are more consistent with the dose calculation by the Monte Carlo algorithm.

Influence of smoothing algorithms in Monte Carlo dose calculations of cyberknife treatment plans: a lung phantom study.

AIM: The Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm yields accurate dose distributions in heterogeneous media and interfaces. The Monte Carlo calculation algorithm provided in the Multiplan Cyberknife treatment planning system (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has five different dose-smoothing algorithms in it. As the principle of smoothing of these algorithms is different, they can produce a disparity in the final dose distribution. The aim of the present study is to analyze the influence of these Monte Carlo smoothing algorithms in the final dose distribution of cyberknife treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic lung phantom with a tumor mimicking ball target was taken for this study. The basic optimization was performed with the Ray tracing algorithm. The Monte Carlo calculations were introduced with each smoothing algorithm on the basic plan and the plans were compared. RESULTS: The Monte Carlo doses were found to be lesser than the Ray tracing doses. The dose conformity index was above 4 for all the smoothing algorithms, while it was only 1.19 for Ray tracing. The least coverage of 6.34 was obtained for a weighted average algorithm. The deviation between the V100% values of different smoothing algorithms was higher than the deviation in V80%. CONCLUSION: The deviations between the smoothing algorithms are higher in the high-dose regions, including the prescribing isodose, than the low-dose regions of the target, as well as in the organs at risk (OAR).

Dosimetric comparison of Linac-based (BrainLAB®) and robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife ®) stereotactic system plans for acoustic schwannoma.

A dosimetric comparison of linear accelerator (LA)-based (BrainLAB) and robotic radiosurgery (RS) (CyberKnife) systems for acoustic schwannoma (Acoustic neuroma, AN) was carried out. Seven patients with radiologically confirmed unilateral AN were planned with both an LA-based (BrainLAB) and robotic RS (CyberKnife) system using the same computed tomography (CT) dataset and contours. Gross tumour volume (GTV) was contoured on post-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan [planning target volume (PTV) margin 2 mm]. Planning and calculation were done with appropriate calculation algorithms. The prescribed isodose in both systems was considered adequate to cover at least 95% of the contoured target. Plan evaluations were done by examining the target coverage by the prescribed isodose line, and high- and low-dose volumes. Isodose plans and dose volume histograms generated by the two systems were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between the contoured volumes between the systems. Tumour volumes ranged from 380 to 3,100 mm(3). Dose prescription was 13-15 Gy in single fraction (median prescribed isodose 85%). There were no significant differences in conformity index (CI) (0.53 versus 0.58; P = 0.225), maximum brainstem dose (4.9 versus 4.7 Gy; P = 0.935), 2.5-Gy volume (39.9 versus 52.3 cc; P = 0.238) or 5-Gy volume (11.8 versus 16.8 cc; P = 0.129) between BrainLAB and CyberKnife system plans. There were statistically significant differences in organs at risk (OAR) doses, such as mean cochlear dose (6.9 versus 5.4 Gy; P = 0.001), mean mesial temporal dose (2.6 versus 1.7 Gy; P = 0.07) and high-dose (10 Gy) volume (3.2 versus 5.2 cc; P = 0.017). AN patients planned with the CyberKnife system had superior OAR (cochlea and mesial temporal lobe) sparing compared with those planned with the Linac-based system. Further evaluation of these findings in prospective studies with clinical correlation will provide actual clinical benefit from the dosimetric superiority of CyberKnife.