Single-isocenter stereotactic non-coplanar arc treatment of 200 patients with brain metastases: multileaf collimator size and setup uncertainties.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our 2 years' experience with single-isocenter, non-coplanar, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: A total of 202 patients treated with the VMAT SRS solution were analyzed retrospectively. Plan quality was assessed for 5 mm (120) and 2.5 mm (high-definition, HD) central leaf width multileaf collimators (MLCs). For BMs at varying distances from the plan isocenter, the geometric offset from the ideal position for two image-guided radiotherapy workflows was calculated. In the workflow with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, München, Germany; W­ET), patient positioning errors were corrected at each couch rotation. In the workflow without ExacTrac (W-noET), only the initial patient setup correction was considered. The dose variation due to rotational errors was simulated for multiple-BM plans with the HD-MLC. RESULTS: Plan conformity and quality assurance were equivalent for plans delivered with the two MLCs while the HD-MLC plans provided better healthy brain tissue (BmP) sparing. 95% of the BMs had residual intrafractional setup errors ≤ 2 mm for W­ET and 68% for W­noET. For small BM (≤1 cc) situated >3 cm from the plan isocenter, the dose received by 95% of the BM decreased in median (interquartile range) by 6.3% (2.8-8.8%) for a 1-degree rotational error. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the HD-MLC is advantageous compared to the 120-MLC for sparing healthy brain tissue. When a 2-mm margin is applied, W­noET is sufficient to ensure coverage of BM situated ≤ 3 cm of the plan isocenter, while for BM further away, W­ET is recommended.

Implementing RapidArc into clinical routine: a comprehensive program from machine QA to TPS validation and patient QA.

PURPOSE: With the increased commercial availability of intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) comes the need for comprehensive QA programs, covering the different aspects of this newly available technology. This manuscript proposes such a program for the RapidArc (RA) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto) IMAT solution. METHODS: The program was developed and tested out for a Millennium120 MLC on iX Clinacs and a HighDefinition MLC on a Novalis TX, using a variety of measurement equipment including Gafchromic film, 2D ion chamber arrays (Seven29 and StarCheck, PTW, Freiburg, Germany) with inclinometer and Octavius phantom, the Delta4 systam (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) and the portal imager (EPID). First, a number of complementary machine QA tests were developed to monitor the correct interplay between the accelerating/decelerating gantry, the variable dose rate and the MLC position, straining the delivery to the maximum allowed limits. Second, a systematic approach to the validation of the dose calculation for RA was adopted, starting with static gantry and RA specific static MLC shapes and gradually moving to dynamic gantry, dynamic MLC shapes. RA plans were then optimized on a series of artificial structures created within the homogeneous Octavius phantom and within a heterogeneous lung phantom. These served the double purpose of testing the behavior of the optimization algorithm (PRO) as well as the precision of the forward dose calculation. Finally, patient QA on a series of clinical cases was performed with different methods. In addition to the well established in-phantom QA, we evaluated the portal dosimetry solution within the Varian approach. RESULTS: For routine machine QA, the "Snooker Cue" test on the EPID proved to be the most sensitive to overall problem detection. It is also the most practical one. The "Twinkle" and "Sunrise" tests were useful to obtain well differentiated information on the individual treatment delivery components. The AAA8.9 dose calculations showed excellent agreement with all corresponding measurements, except in areas where the 2.5 mm fixed fluence resolution was insufficient to accurately model the tongue and groove effect or the dose through nearly closed opposing leafs. Such cases benefited from the increased fluence resolution in AAA10.0. In the clinical RA fields, these effects were smeared out spatially and the impact of the fluence resolution was considerably less pronounced. The RA plans on the artificial structure sets demonstrated some interesting characteristics of the PRO8.9 optimizer, such as a sometimes unexpected dependence on the collimator rotation and a suboptimal coverage of targets within lung tissue. Although the portal dosimetry was successfully validated, we are reluctant to use it as a sole means of patient QA as long as no gantry angle information is embedded. CONCLUSIONS: The all-in validation program allows a systematic approach in monitoring the different levels of RA treatments. With the systematic approach comes a better understanding of both the capabilities and the limits of the used solution. The program can be useful for implementation, but also for the validation of major upgrades.

Clinical implementation of artificial intelligence-driven cone-beam computed tomography-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in the pelvic region.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have demonstrated the potential of online adaptive radiotherapy (oART). However, routine use has been limited due to resource demanding solutions. This study reports on experiences with oART in the pelvic region using a novel cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven solution. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Automated pre-treatment planning for thirty-nine pelvic cases (bladder, rectum, anal, and prostate), and one hundred oART simulations were conducted in a pre-clinical release of Ethos (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Plan quality, AI-segmentation accuracy, oART feasibility and an integrated calculation-based quality assurance solution were evaluated. Experiences from the first five clinical oART patients (three bladder, one rectum and one sarcoma) are reported. RESULTS: Auto-generated pre-treatment plans demonstrated similar planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs at risk doses, compared to institution reference. More than 75% of AI-segmentations during simulated oART required none or minor editing and the adapted plan was superior in 88% of cases. Limitations in AI-segmentation correlated to cases where AI model training was lacking. The five first treated patients complied well with the median adaptive procedure duration of 17.6 min (from CBCT acceptance to treatment delivery start). The treated bladder patients demonstrated a 42% median primary PTV reduction, indicating a 24%-30% reduction in V45Gy to the bowel cavity, compared to non-ART. CONCLUSIONS: A novel commercial oART solution was demonstrated feasible for various pelvic sites. Clinically acceptable AI-segmentation and auto-planning enabled adaptation within reasonable timeslots. Possibilities for reduced PTVs observed for bladder cancer indicated potential for toxicity reductions.

A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators.

The flexibility in radiotherapy can be improved if a patient can be moved between any one of the department's medical linear accelerators without the need to change anything in the patient's treatment plan. For this to be possible, the dosimetric characteristics of the various accelerators must be the same, or nearly the same i.e. the accelerators must be beam-matched. During a period of nine months, eight Varian iX accelerators with 6 and 15 MV photon beams and 6-18 MeV electron beams (only four of the eight) were installed at our clinic. All accelerators fulfilled the vendor-defined "fine beam-match" criteria, and a more extensive set of measurements was carried out during commissioning. The measured absorbed dose data for each accelerator were compared with the first accelerator, chosen as reference, and the TPS calculations. Two of the eight accelerators showed a larger discrepancy for the 15 MV beam not revealed by the vendor-defined acceptance criteria, whereas the other six accelerators were satisfactorily matched. The beam-matching acceptance criteria defined by the vendor are not strict enough to guarantee optimal beam-match. Deviations related to dose calculations and to beam-matched accelerators may add up. The safest and most practical way to ensure that all accelerators are within clinical acceptable accuracy is to include TPS calculations in the evaluation. Further, comparisons between measurements and calculations should be done in absolute dose terms.