Commissioning and clinical evaluation of the IDENTIFYTM surface imaging system for frameless stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: To commission and assess the clinical performance of a new commercial surface imaging (SI) system by analyzing intra-fraction motion from the initial cohort of patients treated with frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS). METHODS: The IDENTIFYTM SI system was commissioned for clinical use on an Edge (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) linear accelerator. All patients who received intracranial radiotherapy with HyperArcTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) were immobilized with the EncompassTM (Qfix, Avondale, PA) thermoplastic mask and monitored for intra-fraction motion with SI. IDENTIFYTM log files were correlated with trajectory log files to correlate treatment parameters with SI-reported offsets. IDENTIFYTM reported offsets were correlated with gantry and couch angles to assess system performance for obstructed and clear camera field of view. Data were stratified by race to evaluate performance differences due to skin tone. RESULTS: All commissioning data were found to meet recommended tolerances. IDENTIFYTM was used to monitor intra-fraction motion on 1164 fractions from 386 patients. The median magnitude of translational SI reported offsets at the end of treatment was 0.27 mm. SI reported offsets were shown to increase when camera pods are blocked by the gantry with larger increases seen at non-zero couch angles. With camera obstruction, the median magnitude of the SI reported offset was 0.50 and 0.80 mm for White and Black patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IDENTIFYTM performance during fSRS is comparable to other commercially available SI systems where offsets are shown to increase at non-zero couch angles and during camera pod blockage.

Evaluation of a two-dimensional diode array for patient-specific quality assurance of HyperArc.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a two-dimensional diode array for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans. METHODS: The diode array, an SRS MapCHECK (SRSMC), was composed of a 77 mm ×77 mm face-centered array having a spacing of 2.47 mm. Sixty SRS plans were selected from our clinical database, 30 for treatment of a single target and 30 for multiple targets. The target sizes ranged from 2.4 mm to 44.7 mm equivalent diameter (median 8.7 mm). The plans were delivered to the diode array. For multiple target plans, two measurements were obtained at two locations, one corresponding to the largest target and the other to the smallest target. Gamma using a 3%/1 mm criteria and the dose to the center diode were compared with radiochromic film (RCF). Dose to selected regions of the detector electronics was calculated. RESULTS: The mean difference between the center diode and RCF was -1.2%. For a threshold of at least 95% of detectors/pixels having gamma < 1 for a 3%/1 mm criteria, SRSMC and RCF gave consistent results for 79 of the 90 measurements. For plans with an arc having a patient support angle of 90° or 270°, the median dose to the electronics was 0.65% of the prescription dose. CONCLUSIONS: SRSMC is an efficient tool for accurate patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT single and multiple target radiosurgery, yielding similar clinical decisions as radiochromic film.

Use of a plastic scintillator detector for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT SRS.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a scintillator detector for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT radiosurgery plans. METHODS: The detector was comprised of a 1 mm diameter, 1 mm high scintillator coupled to an acrylic optical fiber. Sixty VMAT SRS plans for treatment of single targets having sizes ranging from 3 mm to 30.2 mm equivalent diameter (median 16.3 mm) were selected. The plans were delivered to a 20 cm × 20 cm x 15 cm water equivalent plastic phantom having either the scintillator detector or radiochromic film at the center. Calibration films were obtained for each measurement session. The films were scanned and converted to dose using a 3-channel technique. RESULTS: The mean difference between scintillator and film was -0.45% (95% confidence interval -0.1% to 0.8%). For target equivalent diameter smaller than the median, the mean difference was 1.1% (95% confidence interval 0.5% to 1.7%). For targets larger than the median, the mean difference was -0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.7% to 0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The scintillator detector response is independent of target size for targets as small as 3 mm and is well-suited for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT SRS plans. Further work is needed to evaluate the accuracy for VMAT plans that treat multiple targets using a single isocenter.