Evaluation of newly implemented dose calculation algorithms for multileaf collimator‐based CyberKnife tumor‐tracking radiotherapy. Issue 3 (28th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kawata, Kohei; Kamomae, Takeshi; Oguchi, Hiroshi; Kawabata, Fumitaka; Okudaira, Kuniyasu; Kawamura, Mariko; Ohtakara, Kazuhiro; Itoh, Yoshiyuki; Naganawa, Shinji
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 47:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 1391
• Page End: 1403
• Publication Date: 2020-01-28
• Subjects: CyberKnife -- finite‐size pencil beam -- Monte Carlo -- multileaf collimator -- tumor‐tracking radiotherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: In the previous treatment planning system (TPS) for CyberKnife (CK), multileaf collimator (MLC)‐based treatment plans could be created only by using the finite‐size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm. Recently, a new TPS, including the FSPB with lateral scaling option (FSPB+) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, was developed. In this study, we performed basic and clinical end‐to‐end evaluations for MLC‐based CK tumor‐tracking radiotherapy using the MC, FSPB+, and FSPB. Methods: Water‐ and lung‐equivalent slab phantoms were combined to obtain the percentage depth dose (PDD) and off‐center ratio (OCR). The CK M6 system and Precision TPS were employed, and PDDs and OCRs calculated by the MC, FSPB+, and FSPB were compared with the measured doses obtained for 30.8 × 30.8 mm 2 and 60.0 × 61.6 mm 2 fields. A lung motion phantom was used for clinical evaluation and MLC‐based treatment plans were created using the MC. The doses were subsequently recalculated using the FSPB+ and FSPB, while maintaining the irradiation parameters. The calculated doses were compared with the doses measured using a microchamber (for target doses) or a radiochromic film (for dose profiles). The dose volume histogram (DVH) indices were compared for all plans. Results: In homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantom geometries, the PDDs calculated by the MC and FSPB+ agreed with the measurements within ±2.0% for the region between the surface and a depth of 250 mm, whereas the doses calculated by the FSPB in the lung‐equivalent phantom region were noticeably higher than the measurements, and the maximum dose differences were 6.1% and 4.4% for the 30.8 × 30.8 mm 2 and 60.0 × 61.6 mm 2 fields, respectively. The maximum distance to agreement values of the MC, FSPB+, and FSPB at the penumbra regions of OCRs were 1.0, 0.6, and 1.1 mm, respectively, but the best agreement was obtained between the MC‐calculated curve and measurements at the boundary of the water‐ and lung‐equivalent slabs, compared with those of the FSPB+ and FSPB. For clinical evaluations using the lung motion phantom, under the static motion condition, the dose errors measured by the microchamber were −1.0%, −1.9%, and 8.8% for MC, FSPB+, and FSPB, respectively; their gamma pass rates for the 3%/2 mm criterion comparing to film measurement were 98.4%, 87.6%, and 31.4% respectively. Under respiratory motion conditions, there was no noticeable decline in the gamma pass rates. In the DVH indices, for most of the gross tumor volume and planning target volume, significant differences were observed between the MC and FSPB, and between the FSPB+ and FSPB. Furthermore, significant differences were observed for lung D mean, V 15 Gy, and V 20 Gy between the MC, FSPB+, and FSPB. Conclusions: The results indicate that the doses calculated using the MC and FSPB+ differed remarkably in inhomogeneous regions, compared with the FSPB. Because the MC was the most consistent with the measurements, it is recommended for final dose calculations in inhomogeneous regions such as the lung. Furthermore, the sufficient accuracy of dose delivery using MLC‐based tumor‐tracking radiotherapy by CK was demonstrated for clinical implementation.