An integrated treatment delivery system for CSRS and CSRT and clinical applications

Radiosurgery technology development and use

Radiosurgery first became a clinical option in the 1960's because of the Gamma Knife, and the technology proliferated in the 1980's due to the availability of linear accelerator radiosurgery. The technology has continued to develop with both Gamma Knife and linac radiosurgery due primarily to advances in computer technology and robotic automation. Many of these advances include planning systems that enhance the conformity of the dose distribution, and delivery systems that can more safely and efficiently delivery these more complex treatment plans. This manuscript details the evolution of technologies in stereotactic localization and delivery for intracranial radiosurgery.

Dosimetric verification of micro-MLC based intensity modulated radiation therapy

A methodology for the dosimetric verification of micro-multileaf collimator MMLC) based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans intended for stereotactic applications is described. The procedure is similar to that of conventional IMRT patient-specific quality assurance with some notable exceptions. Relative dosimetry measurements are performed with radiographic film, a commercial film-scanning system and a dose-image registration program. Film dosimetry results are within +/- 3.0% of calculated distributions or within 2.0 mm distance to agreement. Absolute dosimetry measurements are performed with a small volume ion-chamber and a commercially available stereotactic phantom. The cumulative dose from all beams is within +/- 2.0 % of the prescribed dose. Large deviations may be observed from individual beams since the smaller IMRT fields tend to have very few high-dose and low-gradient regions. An independent program that examines the treatment MLC file is used to estimate the central axis dose from each beam and provide a dose image that can be assessed alongside the intended fluence distribution prior to treatment. Tolerances for relative and absolute dosimetry of MMLC-based IMRT treatments are tighter than what is typically reported for conventional MLC-based IMRT. Also, the time commitment for the IMRT QA is slightly longer than of conventional MLC-based IMRT due to QA processes which check the mechanical alignment of the MMLC device with the laser and radiation isocentre.

Integration of Cone-Beam CT in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

This report describes the technique and initial experience using cone beam CT (CBCT) for localization of treatment targets in patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Patients selected for SBRT underwent 3-D or 4-D CT scans in a customized immobilization cradle. GTV, CTV, ITV, and PTV were defined. Intensity-modulated radiation beams, multiple 3-D conformal beams, or dynamic conformal arcs were delivered using a Varian 21EX with 120-leaf MLC. CBCT images were obtained prior to each fraction, and registered to the planning CT by using soft tissue and bony structures to assure accurate isocenter localization. Patients were repositioned for treatment based on the CBCT images. Radiographic images (kV, MV, or CBCT) were taken before and after beam delivery to further assess set-up accuracy. Ten patients with lung, liver, and spine lesions received 29 fractions of treatment using this technique. The prescription doses ranged 1250 ~ 6000 cGy in 1 ~ 5 fractions. Compared to traditional 2-D matching using bony structures, CBCT corrects target deviation from 1 mm to 15 mm, with an average of 5 mm. Comparison of pre-treatment to post-treatment radiographic images demonstrated an average 2 mm deviation (ranging from 0–4 mm). Improved immobilization may enhance positioning accuracy. Typical total “in-room” times for the patients are approximately 1 hour. CBCT-guided SBRT is feasible and enhances setup accuracy using 3-D anatomical information.

Dosimetric characteristics of dual-layer multileaf collimation for small-field and intensity-modulated radiation therapy applications

The purpose of the present work was to measure the performance characteristics in the penumbra region and on the leaf‐end of an innovative dual‐layer micro multileaf collimator (DmMLC). The DmMLC consists of two orthogonal (upper and lower) layers of leaves; a standard MLC consists of one layer. The DmMLC provides unique performance characteristics in smoothing dose undulation, reducing leaf‐end transmission, and reducing MLC field dependence of the leaf stepping angle. Two standard MLCs (80‐leaf and 120‐leaf versions: Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), a DmMLC (AccuKnife: Initia Medical Technology, Canton, MA), and a Cerrobend (Cerro Metal Products, Bellefonte, PA) block were used in performance studies involving a triangular field, a cross leaf‐end field, and a circular field. Measurements were made with 6‐MV X‐rays and extended dose range film at a depth of 5 cm in Solid Water (Gammex rmi, Middleton, WI) at a source–axis distance of 100 cm. The field penumbra width measured between the 20% and 80% isodose lines through the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, DmMLC, and Cerrobend block were 9.0, 5.0, 3.0, and 2.0 mm respectively. The dose undulation amplitude of the 50% isodose line was measured as 5.5, 2.0, and 0.5 mm for the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, and DmMLC respectively. The planar dose difference between the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, and DmMLC against Cerrobend block was measured as ranging at ±52.5%,±35.0%, and ±20.0% respectively. The leaf‐end transmission was measured at 22.4% in maximum and 15.4% in average when closing a single layer of the DmMLC, and at 2.4% in maximum and 2.1% in average when closing both layers. The MLC dependence of the leaf stepping angle with the DmMLC ranged from 45 degrees to 90 degrees. The standard MLC leaf stepping angle ranged from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. In conclusion, the dose undulation, leaf‐end transmission, and MLC field dependence of the leaf stepping angle with the DmMLC were remarkably reduced as compared with those of the standard MLCs. And as compared with Cerrobend block, the DmMLC provided very comparable performance in field‐edge smoothing and in the shaping of complex fields.

PACS numbers: 87.56.Jk, 87.56.Nk, 87.56.Nj, 87.57.Nt