Technical Note: Performance of CyberKnife ® tracking using low‐dose CT and kV imaging

Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator

PURPOSE

To apply an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose verification for CyberKnife M6 with Iris collimator and evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of RayTracing (TPS-RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (TPS-MC) algorithm in the Precision treatment planning system (TPS).

METHODS

GPU-accelerated MC algorithm (ArcherQA-CK) was integrated into a commercial dose verification system, ArcherQA, to implement the patient-specific quality assurance in the CyberKnife M6 system. 30 clinical cases (10 cases in head, and 10 cases in chest, and 10 cases in abdomen) were collected in this study. For each case, three different dose calculation methods (TPS-MC, TPS-RT and ArcherQA-CK) were implemented based on the same treatment plan and compared with each other. For evaluation, the 3D global gamma analysis and dose parameters of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed comparatively.

RESULTS

For gamma pass rates at the criterion of 2%/2 mm, the results were over 98.0% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in head cases, 84.9% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 98.0% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 83.3% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in chest cases, 98.2% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 99.4% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 94.5% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in abdomen cases. For dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) in chest cases, the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and ArcherQA-CK vs. TPS-MC had significant difference (P < 0.01), and the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK were similar (P > 0.05). ArcherQA-CK had less calculation time compared with TPS-MC (1.66 min vs. 65.11 min).

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed MC dose engine (ArcherQA-CK) has a high degree of consistency with the Precision TPS-MC algorithm, which can quickly identify the calculation errors of TPS-RT algorithm for some chest cases. ArcherQA-CK can provide accurate patient-specific quality assurance in clinical practice.

Fiducial marker motion relative to the tumor bed has a significant impact on PTV margins in partial breast irradiation

INTRODUCTION

With the introduction of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and the trend of reducing the number of fractions, the geometric accuracy of treatment delivery becomes critical. APBI patient setup is often based on fiducials, as the seroma is frequently not visible on pretreatment imaging. We assessed the motion of fiducials relative to the tumor bed between planning CT and treatment, and calculated margins to compensate for this motion.

METHODS

A cohort of seventy patients treated with APBI on a Cyberknife was included. Planning and in-room pretreatment CT scans were registered on the tumor bed. Residual motion of the centers of mass of surgical clips and interstitial gold markers was calculated. We calculated the margins required per desired percentage of patients with 100% CTV coverage, and the systematic and random errors for fiducial motion.

RESULTS

For a single fraction treatment, a margin of 1.8 mm would ensure 100% CTV coverage in 90% of patients when using surgical clips for patient set-up. When using interstitial markers, the margin should be 2.2 mm. The systematic and random errors were 0.46 mm for surgical clip motion and 0.60 mm for interstitial marker motion. No clinical factors were found predictive for fiducial motion.

CONCLUSIONS

Fiducial motion relative to the tumor bed between planning CT and APBI treatment is non-negligible and should be included in the PTV margin calculation to prevent geographical miss. Systematic and random errors of fiducial motion were combined with other geometric uncertainties to calculate comprehensive PTV margins for different treatment techniques.