Stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumor beds on a ring-mounted Halcyon LINAC.

PURPOSE: This study sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of the Halcyon Ring Delivery System (RDS) for delivering stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatments for intracranial tumors beds. METHODS: Ten previously treated brain SRT patients for 30 Gy in five fractions with non-coplanar HyperArc plans on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) were replanned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF) using the same number of arcs and Eclipse's AcurosXB dose engine. Plan quality evaluation metrics per SRT protocol included: PTV coverage, GTV dose (minimum and mean), target conformity indices (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), maximum dose 2 cm away from the PTV (D2cm), and doses to organs-at-risk (OAR). Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance (QA) results and beam-on-time (BOT) were analyzed. RESULTS: The Halcyon RDS provided highly conformal SRT plans for intracranial tumor beds with similar dose to target. When benchmarked against clinically delivered HyperArc plans, target coverage, CI(s) and HI were statistically similar. The Halcyon plans saw no statistical difference in maximum OAR doses to the brainstem, spinal cord, and cochlea. Due to the machine's coplanar geometry, the Halcyon plans showed a decrease in optic pathway dose (0.75 Gy vs. 2.08 Gy, p = 0.029). Overall, Halcyon's coplanar geometry resulted in a larger GI (3.33 vs. 2.72, p = 0.008) and a larger D2cm (39.59% vs. 29.07%, p < 0.001). In this cohort, multiple cases had the PTV and the optic pathway in the same axial plane. In one such instance, the PTV was <2 cm away from the optic pathway but even at this close proximity OAR, Halcyon still adequately spared the optic pathway. Additionally, the Halcyon's geometry provided slightly larger amount of normal brain dose receiving 24.4 Gy (8.99 cc vs. 7.36 cc) and 28.8 Gy (2.9 cc vs. 2.5 cc), although statistically insignificant. The Halcyon plans achieved similar delivery accuracy, quantified by patient-specific QA results evaluated with a 2%/2 mm gamma criteria (99.42% vs. 99.70%). For both plans, independent Monte Carlo second checks calculation agreed within 1%. Average Halcyon BOT was slightly higher by 0.35 min (p = 0.045), however, due to the one-step patient set-up and verification overall estimated treatment times on Halcyon were lower compared to HyperArc treatments (7.61 min vs. 10.26 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When benchmarked against clinically delivered HyperArc treatments, the Halcyon brain SRT plans provided similar plan quality and delivery accuracy but achieved faster overall treatment times. We have started treating select brain SRT patients on the Halcyon RDS for patients having tumor beds greater than 1 cm in diameter with the closest OAR distance of greater than 2 cm away from the target. We recommend other clinics to consider commissioning SRT treatments on their Halcyon systems-allowing including remote Halcyon-only clinics to provide exceptionally high-quality therapeutic brain SRT treatments to an otherwise underserved patient cohort.

Dosimetric impact of intrafraction patient motion on MLC-based 3D-conformal spatially fractionated radiation therapy treatment of large and bulky tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric impact on spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) plan quality due to intrafraction patient motion via multi-field MLC-based method for treating large and bulky (≥8 cm) unresectable tumors. METHODS: For large tumors, a cone beam CT-guided 3D conformal MLC-based SFRT method was utilized with 15 Gy prescription. An MLC GTV-fitting algorithm provided 1 cm diameter apertures with a 2 cm center-to-center distance at the isocenter. This generated a highly heterogeneous sieve-like dose distribution within an hour, enabling same-day SFRT treatment. Fifteen previously treated SFRT patients were analyzed (5 head & neck [H&N], 5 chest and lungs, and 5 abdominal and pelvis masses). For each plan, intrafraction motion errors were simulated by incrementally shifting original isocenters of each field in different x-, y-, and z-directions from 1 to 5 mm. The dosimetric metrics analyzed were: peak-to-valley-dose-ratio (PVDR), percentage of GTV receiving 7.5 Gy, GTV mean dose, and maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). RESULTS: For ±1, ±2, ±3, ±4, and ±5 mm isocenter shifts: PVDR dropped by 3.9%, 3.8%, 4.0%, 4.1%, and 5.5% on average respectively. The GTV(V7.5) remained within 0.2%, and the GTV mean dose remained within 3.3% on average, compared to the original plans. The average PVDR drop for 5 mm shifts was 4.2% for H&N cases, 10% for chest and lung, and 2.2% for abdominal and pelvis cases. OAR doses also increased. The maximum dose to the spinal cord increased by up to 17 cGy in H&N plans, mean lung dose (MLD) changed was small for chest/lung, but the bowel dose varied up to 100 cGy for abdominal and pelvis cases. CONCLUSION: Due to tumor size, location, and characteristics of MLC-based SFRT, isocenter shifts of up to ±5 mm in different directions had moderate effects on PVDR for H&N and pelvic tumors and a larger effect on chest tumors. The dosimetric impact on OAR doses depended on the treatment site. Site-specific patient masks, Vac-Lok bags, and proper immobilization devices similar to SBRT/SRT setups should be used to minimize these effects.