Evaluation of a high resolution diode array for CyberKnife quality assurance.

PURPOSE: The CyberKnife quality assurance (QA) program relies mainly on the use of radiochromic film (RCF). We aimed at evaluating high-resolution arrays of detectors as an alternative to films for CyberKnife machine QA. METHODS: This study will test the SRS Mapcheck (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, Florida, USA) diode array and its own software, which allows three tests of the CyberKnife QA program to be performed. The first one is a geometrical accuracy test based on the delivery of two orthogonal beams (Automated Quality Assurance, AQA). Besides comparing the constancy and repeatability of both methods, known errors will be introduced to check their sensitivity. The second checks the constancy of the iris collimator field sizes (Iris QA). Changes in the field sizes will be introduced to study the array sensitivity. The last test checks the correct positioning of the multileaf collimator (MLC). It will be tested introducing known systematic displacements to whole banks and to single leaves. RESULTS: The results of the RCF and diode array were equivalent (maximum differences of 0.18 ± 0.14 mm) for the AQA test, showing the array a higher reproducibility. When known errors were introduced, both methods behaved linearly with similar slopes. Regarding Iris QA, the array measurements are highly linear when changes in the field sizes are introduced. Linear regressions show slopes of 0.96-1.17 with r2 above 0.99 in all field sizes. Diode array seems to detect changes of 0.1 mm. In MLC QA, systematic errors of the whole bank of leaves were not detected by the array, while single leaf errors were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The diode array is sensitive and accurate in the AQA and Iris QA tests, which give us the possibility of substituting RCF with a diode array. QA would be performed faster than using the film procedure, obtaining reliable results. Regarding the MLC QA, the inability to detect systematic displacements make it difficult to confidently use the detector.

The use of a thin guide-wire for urethral definition in prostate SBRT treatments with Cyberknife.

PURPOSE: To study and analyze the effect of the use of a thin guide-wire instead of a Foley catheter for urethral definition in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments and to compare treatment parameters in both situations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-seven prostate SBRT patients were employed in this study. A Foley catheter was employed in nine of them, and a guide-wire was employed in the other 28 patients. For each of the 28 patients in which the guide-wire was employed, a comparison between urethral positions in both situations was performed, allowing for a margin definition of the urethra when a Foley catheter was employed. Displacements of the prostate during treatment were obtained, allowing for an analysis of prostate positions in both situations. Also, different treatment parameters such as the number of treatment interruptions, couch movements performed, and x-rays needed were gathered. RESULTS: Large differences between urethral positions can be found in the anterior-posterior (AP) directions compared to those in the lateral (LAT) direction. Differences are also larger in areas closer to the base of the prostate, where margins applied in the case of using a Foley catheter are 16 mm with a mean displacement of 6 mm in the posterior direction. No differences in the treatment parameters were found during treatment in both situations. The difference found in absolute prostate pitch rotations suggests that the Foley catheter provokes a shift of the prostate position, which does not occur when employing the guide-wire. CONCLUSIONS: Foley catheters shift the urethral position, making them a wrong surrogate of the urethra when no catheters are present. The margins needed to assess uncertainties introduced by the use of a Foley catheter are larger than those usually applied. The use of a Foley catheter did not present any additional difficulty during treatment delivery in terms of images employed or interruptions produced.