Surface-Guided Radiotherapy: Can We Move on from the Era of Three-Point Markers to the New Era of Thousands of Points?

The surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) technique improves patient positioning with submillimeter accuracy compared with the conventional positioning technique of lasers using three-point tattoos. SGRT provides solutions to considerations that arise from the conventional setup technique, such as variability in tattoo position and the psychological impact of the tattoos. Moreover, SGRT provides monitoring of intrafractional motion. PURPOSE: This literature review covers the basics of SGRT systems and examines whether SGRT can replace the traditional positioning technique. In addition, it investigates SGRT's potential in reducing positioning times, factors affecting SGRT accuracy, the effectiveness of live monitoring, and the impact on patient dosage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study focused on papers published from 2016 onward that compared SGRT with the traditional positioning technique and investigated factors affecting SGRT accuracy and effectiveness. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: SGRT provides the same or better results regarding patient positioning. The implementation of SGRT can reduce overall treatment time. It is an effective technique for detecting intrafraction patient motion, improving treatment accuracy and precision, and creating a safe and comfortable environment for the patient during treatment.

Craniospinal Irradiation: A Dosimetric Comparison Between O-Ring Linac and Conventional C-arm Linac.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to perform a dosimetric evaluation between craniospinal irradiation volumetric modulated arc therapy plans designed for an O-Ring and a conventional C-arm Linac. Methods and Materials: Two adult patients were selected for this study. Two plans were designed one for a TrueBeam Edge and one for Halcyon O-ring Linac for each patient. The evaluation of the plans was conducted in terms of dose volume histogram analysis of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) along with total plan monitor units and beam-on time. Paired sample t test was performed to compare Dmax and Dmean of OARs for each plan's comparison. The delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans was evaluated using Octavius 4D phantom. Results: All plans demonstrated dose distributions with sufficient planned target volume conformity and homogeneity. The Homogeneity Index and Conformity Index for all plans were found comparable. The paired sample t test did not demonstrate significant difference in terms of Dmax and Dmean of OARs between plans for both patients. All plans met the threshold of 90%, with Halcyon plans having higher gamma passing rates. Conclusions: Craniospinal irradiation plans generated for Halcyon and Edge are equivalent in terms of plan quality and dose sparing at OARs. The small variations may have originated from the differences in beam profile or mean energy, the degree of the modulation for each plan and characteristics of multi leaf collimators for each treatment unit. Halcyon is able to deliver a distinctly faster treatment, but Edge provides an automatic rotational correction for patient positioning.