Technical Note: Flattening filter free beam from Halcyon linac: Evaluation of the profile parameters for quality assurance

Development of shielding evaluation and management program for O-ring type linear accelerators

The shielding parameters can vary depending on the geometrical structure of the linear accelerators (LINAC), treatment techniques, and beam energies. Recently, the introduction of O-ring type linear accelerators is increasing. The objective of this study is to evaluate the shielding parameters of new type of linac using a dedicated program developed by us named ORSE (O-ring type Radiation therapy equipment Shielding Evaluation). The shielding evaluation was conducted for a total of four treatment rooms including Elekta Unity, Varian Halcyon, and Accuray Tomotherapy. The developed program possesses the capability to calculate transmitted dose, maximum treatable patient capacity, and shielding wall thickness based on patient data. The doses were measured for five days using glass dosimeters to compare with the results of program. The IMRT factors and use factors obtained from patient data showed differences of up to 65.0% and 33.8%, respectively, compared to safety management report. The shielding evaluation conducted in each treatment room showed that the transmitted dose at every location was below 1% of the dose limit. The results of program and measurements showed a maximum difference of 0.003 mSv/week in transmitted dose. The ORSE program allows for the shielding evaluation results to the clinical environment of each institution based on patient data.

Multicentric characterisation of lateral beam profiles generated by 6FFF beam of three 0.35 T MR-linac systems

BACKGROUND

The physical characterisation of FFF-beam profiles in the presence of a magnetic field requires a new standardization procedure and formulation.

PURPOSE

The aim of this multicentric experience is to propose new normalisation factors to allow for the calculation of standard parameters typical of flattened beams, such as dosimetric field size and penumbra, for a 6 MV FFF beam from an MR-linac.

METHODS

The measurements were carried out on three ViewRay-MRIdiansystems. An equal set of measurements was acquired using the same equipment. Transverse beam profiles were acquired at seven different depthsand for six beam dimensions.The inflection point was estimated as the position of the maximum of a Gaussian fit obtained from the first derivative of the profiles. The position of the minimum and maximum points of the second derivative of the above Gaussian described the fall-off region, and the external peaks of the third derivative were considered as the in-field and out-field points. The profile normalisation was determined by imposing a 55% dose level at the inflection point and the renormalisation factors were calculated.

RESULTS

The position of the inflection point, and the second and third derivatives peaks were analysed,and the renormalisation factors as a function of field size and depth were determined. The values of the unflatness and the slope have been calculated for different depths and field sizes.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first multi-centric evaluation of the profiles on different low-field MR-Linac systems and theset of renormalisation parameters to analyse the FFF-beam on that system was effectively proposed.

Two novel stereotactic radiotherapy methods for locally advanced, previously irradiated head and neck cancers patients

To determine the feasibility and utility of conebeam CT-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent, previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients on the Halcyon, a ring delivery system (RDS). This research aims to quantify plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and overall efficacy by comparing against novel clinical TrueBeam HyperArc method. Ten recurrent HNC patients who were treated at our institution on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) for 30 to 40 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions with noncoplanar HyperArc plans were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF). These plans were re-planned with the same Acuros-based dose engine. Additionally, we used site-specific full/partial coplanar VMAT arcs. PTV coverage, mean dose to GTV, maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OAR), beam-on time (BOT), and quality assurance (QA) results were investigated and compared. Halcyon provided highly conformal HNC SRT plans with slightly superior mean PTVD99 coverage (96.7% vs 95.5%, p = 0.071), and slightly lower mean GTV dose (37.8 Gy vs 38.2 Gy, p = 0.241) when compared to the HyperArc plans. Differences in plan conformality and maximum dose to OARs were statistically insignificant. Due to Halcyon's coplanar geometry, D2cm was significantly higher (p = 0.001) but Halcyon did result in a reduced normal brain dose by 1 Gy on average and up to 5.2 Gy in some cases. Halcyon provided similar patient-specific QA pass rates with a 2%/2mm gamma criteria (98.2% vs 98.5%) and independent in-house Monte Carlo second check results (97.7% vs 98.2%), suggesting identical treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon plans resulted in slightly longer beam-on time (3.16 vs 2.30 minutes, p = 0.010), however door-to-door patient time is expected to be <10 minutes. Compared to clinical TrueBeam HyperArc, Halcyon SRT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy with a potentially faster overall treatment using fully automated patient setup and verification. Rapid delivery of recurrent HNC SRT may reduce intrafraction motion errors while also improving patient compliance and comfort. To provide high-quality of HNC SRT similar to HyperArc, we recommend Halcyon users consider commissioning this novel method. This method will be useful for remote and underserved patient cohorts including Halcyon-only clinics as well.

Benchmarking halcyon ring delivery system for hypofractionated breast radiotherapy: Validation and clinical implementation of the fast-forward trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of an iterative CBCT-guided breast radiotherapy with Fast-Forward trial of 26 Gy in five fractions on a Halcyon Linac. This study quantifies Halcyon plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy and efficacy by comparison with those of clinical TrueBeam plans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) patients (four right, six left) who underwent Fast-Forward trial at our institute on TrueBeam (6MV beam) were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF). Three site-specific partial coplanar VMAT arcs and an Acuros-based dose engine were used. For benchmarking, PTV coverage, organs-at-risk (OAR) doses, beam-on time, and quality assurance (QA) results were compared for both plans.

RESULTS

The average PTV was 806 cc. Compared to TrueBeam plans, Halcyon provided highly conformal and homogeneous plans with similar mean PTVD95 (25.72  vs. 25.73 Gy), both global maximum hotspot < 110% (p = 0.954) and similar mean GTV dose (27.04  vs. 26.80 Gy, p = 0.093). Halcyon provided lower volume of ipsilateral lung receiving 8 Gy (6.34% vs. 8.18%, p = 0.021), similar heart V1.5 Gy (16.75% vs. 16.92%, p = 0.872), V7Gy (0% vs. 0%), mean heart dose (0.96  vs. 0.9 Gy, p = 0.228), lower maximum dose to contralateral breast (3.2  vs. 3.6 Gy, p = 0.174), and nipple (19.6  vs. 20.1 Gy, p = 0.363). Compared to TrueBeam, Halcyon plans provided similar patient-specific QA pass rates and independent in-house Monte Carlo second check results of 99.6% vs. 97.9% (3%/2 mm gamma criteria) and 98.6% versus 99.2%, respectively, suggesting similar treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon provided shorter beam-on time (1.49  vs. 1.68 min, p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Compared to the SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam, Halcyon VMAT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy, yet potentially faster treatment via one-step patient setup and verification with no patient collision issues. Rapid delivery of daily APBI on Fast-Forward trial on Halcyon with door-to-door patient time < 10 min, could reduce intrafraction motion errors, and improve patient comfort and compliance. We have started treating APBI on Halcyon. Clinical follow-up results are warranted. We recommend Halcyon users consider implementing the protocol to remote and underserved APBI patients in Halcyon-only clinics.

How much rotational error is clinically acceptable for single-isocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT treatment on halcyon ring delivery system (RDS)?

PURPOSE

SBRT treatment of two separate lung lesions via single-isocenter/multi-target (SIMT) plan on Halcyon RDS could improve patient comfort, compliance, patient throughput, and clinic efficiency. However, aligning two separate lung lesions synchronously via a single pre-treatment CBCT scan on Halcyon can be difficult due to rotational patient setup errors. Thus, to quantify the dosimetric impact, we simulated loss of target(s) coverage due to small, yet clinically observable rotational patient setup errors on Halcyon for SIMT treatments.

METHODS

Seventeen previously treated 4D-CT based SIMT lung SBRT patients with two separate lesions (total 34 lesions, 50 Gy in five fractions to each lesion) on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF) using a similar arc geometry (except couch rotation), dose engine (AcurosXB algorithm), and treatment planning objectives. Rotational patient setup errors of [± 0.5⁰ to ± 3.0⁰] on Halcyon were simulated via Velocity registration software in all three rotation axes and recalculated dose distributions in Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric impact of rotational errors was evaluated for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR).

RESULTS

Average PTV volume and distance to isocenter were 23.7 cc and 6.1 cm. Average change in Paddick's conformity indexes were less than -5%, -10%, and -15% for 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively for yaw, roll, and pitch rotation directions. Maximum drop off of PTV(D100%) coverage for 2° rotation was -2.0% (yaw), -2.2% (roll), and -2.5% (pitch). With ±1° rotational error, no PTV(D100%) loss was found. Due to anatomical complexity: irregular and highly variable tumor sizes and locations, highly heterogenous dose distribution, and steep dose gradient, no trend for loss of target(s) coverage as a function of distance to isocenter and PTV size was found. Change in maximum dose to OAR were acceptable per NRG-BR001 within ±1.0° rotation, but were up to 5 Gy higher to heart with 2° in the pitch rotation axis.

CONCLUSION

Our clinically realistic simulation results show that rotational patient setup errors up to 1.0° in any rotation axis could be acceptable for selected two separate lung lesions SBRT patients on Halcyon. Multivariable data analysis in large cohort is ongoing to fully characterize Halcyon RDS for synchronous SIMT lung SBRT.

The spatial accuracy of ring-mounted halcyon linac versus C-arm TrueBeam linac for single-isocenter/multi-target SBRT treatment

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment of oligometastatic lesions via single-isocenter/multi-target (SIMT) plan is more efficient than using multi-isocenter/multitarget SBRT. This study quantifies the spatial positioning accuracy of 2 commercially available LINAC systems for SIMT treatment pertaining to the potential amplification of error as a function of the target's distance-to-isocenter. We compare the Ring-Gantry Halcyon LINAC equipped with the fast iterative conebeam-CT (iCBCT) for image-guided SIMT treatment, and the SBRT-dedicated C-Arm TrueBeam with standard pretreatment CBCT imaging. For both systems, Sun Nuclear's MultiMet Winston-Lutz Cube phantom with 6 metallic BBs distributed at different planes up to 7 cm away from the isocenter was used. The phantom was aligned and imaged via CBCT, and then couch corrections were applied. To treat all 6 BBs, an Eclipse 10-field 3D-conformal Field-in-Field (2×2 cm² MLC field to each BB) plan for varying gantry, collimator, and couch (TrueBeam only) positions was developed for both machines with 6MV-FFF beam. The plan was delivered through ARIA once a week. The EPID images were analyzed via Sun Nuclear's software for spatial positioning accuracy. On TrueBeam, the treatment plan was delivered twice: once with 3DoF translational corrections and once with PerfectPitch 6DoF couch corrections. The average 3D spatial positioning accuracy was 0.55 ± 0.30 mm, 0.54 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.56 ± 0.28 mm at isocenter, and 0.59 ± 0.30 mm, 0.69 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.70 ± 0.35 mm at 7 cm distance-to-isocenter for Halcyon, TrueBeam 3DoF, and TrueBeam 6DoF, respectively. This suggests there are no clinically significant deviations of spatial uncertainty between the platforms with the distance-to-isocenter. On both platforms, our weekly independent measurements demonstrated the reproducibility for less than 1.0 mm positional accuracy of off-axis targets up to 7 cm from the isocenter. Due to this, no additional PTV-margin is suggested for lesions within 7 cm of isocenter. This study confirms that Halcyon can deliver similar positional accuracy to SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam to off-axis targets up to 7 cm from isocenter. These results further benchmark the spatial uncertainty of our extensively used SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam LINAC for SIMT SBRT treatments.

Patient-specific quality assurance prediction models based on machine learning for novel dual-layered MLC linac

BACKGROUND

Patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is an indispensable and essential procedure in radiotherapy workflow, and several studies have been done to develop prediction models based on the conventional C-arm linac of single-layered multileaf collimator (MLC) with machine learning (ML) and deep learning techniques to predict PSQA results and improve efficiency. Recently, a newly designed O-ring gantry linac "Halcyon" equipped with unique jawless stacked-and-staggered dual-layered MLC was released. However, few studies have focused on developing PSQA prediction models for this novel dual-layered MLC system.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the performance of ML to predict PSQA results of fixed field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (FF-IMRT) plans for linac equipped with dual-layered MLC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 213 FF-IMRT treatment plans, including 1383 beams from various treatment sites, were selected and delivered with portal dosimetry verification on Halcyon linac. Gamma analysis was performed using 1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/2 mm criteria with a 10% threshold. The training set (TS) of ML models consisted of 1106 beams, and an independent evaluation set (ES) consisted of 277 beams. For each beam, 33 complexity metrics were extracted as input data for training models. Three ML algorithms (gradient boosting decision tree/GBDT, random forest/RF, and Poisson Lasso/PL) were utilized to build the models and predict gamma passing rates (GPRs). To improve the prediction accuracy in the rare region, a method of reweighting for TS has been performed and compared to the unweighted results. The importance of complexity metrics was studied by permuted interesting features.

RESULTS

The GBDT model had the best performance in this study. In ES, the minimal mean prediction error for unweighted results was 1.93%, 1.16%, 0.78% under 1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/2 mm criteria, respectively, from GBDT model. Comparing to the unweighted results, the models after reweighting gained up to 30% improvement in the rare region, whereas the overall prediction error was slightly worse depending on the kind of models. For feature importance, 2 tree-based models (GBDT and RF) had in common the top 10 most important metrics as well as the same metric with the largest impact.

CONCLUSION

For linac equipped with novel dual-layered MLC, the ML model based on GBDT algorithm shows a certain degree of accuracy for GPRs prediction. The specific ML model for dual-layered MLC configuration could be a useful tool for physicists detecting PSQA measurement failures.

Clinical performance evaluation of O-Ring Halcyon Linac: A real-world study

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy, especially the development of linear accelerators, plays a key role in cancer management. The fast-rotating coplanar O-ring Halcyon Linac has demonstrated many advantages. The previous literature has mainly focused on the machine parameters and plan quality of Halcyon, with a lack of relevant research on its clinical application.

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of the O-ring Halcyon treatment system in a real-world application setting.

METHODS

Data from sixty-one patients who were treated with the Halcyon system throughout the entire radiotherapy process in Peking Union Medical College Hospital between August 2019 and September 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the target tumour response to radiotherapy and irradiation toxicity from 1 to 3 mo after treatment. Dosimetric verification of Halcyon plans was performed using a quality assurance procedure, including portal dosimetry, ArcCHECK and point dose measurements for verification of the system delivery accuracy.

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients in the five groups, 16, 12, 7 and 26 patients had complete response, partial response, progressive disease and stable disease, respectively. No increase in the irradiated target tumour volume was observed when separately evaluating the local response. Regarding irradiation toxicity, no radiation-induced deaths were observed. Thirty-eight percent (23/61 patients) had no radiation toxicity after radiotherapy, 56% (34/61 patients) experienced radiation toxicity that resolved after treatment, and 6% (4/61 patients) had irreversible adverse reactions. The average gamma passing rates with a 2% dose difference and 2-mm distance to agreement for IMRT/VMAT/SRT plans were ArcCHECK at 96.4% and portal dosimetry at 96.7%, respectively. All of the validated clinical plans were within 3% for point dose measurements, and Halcyon’s ArcCHECK demonstrated a high pass rate of 99.1% ± 1.1% for clinical gamma passing criteria of 3%/3 mm.

CONCLUSION

The O-ring Halcyon Linac could achieve a better therapeutic effect on the target volume by providing accurate treatment delivery plans with tolerable irradiation toxicity.

Fast generation of lung SBRT plans with a knowledge-based planning model on ring-mounted Halcyon Linac

Purpose

To demonstrate fast treatment planning feasibility of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for centrally located lung tumors on Halcyon Linac via a previously validated knowledge‐based planning (KBP) model to support offline adaptive radiotherapy.

Materials/methods

Twenty previously treated non‐coplanar volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung SBRT plans (c‐Truebeam) on SBRT‐dedicated C‐arm Truebeam Linac were selected. Patients received 50 Gy in five fractions. c‐Truebeam plans were re‐optimized for Halcyon manually (m‐Halcyon) and with KBP model (k‐Halcyon). Both m‐Halcyon and k‐Halcyon plans were normalized for identical or better target coverage than clinical c‐Truebeam plans and compared for target conformity, dose heterogeneity, dose fall‐off, and dose tolerances to the organs‐at‐risk (OAR). Treatment delivery parameters and planning times were evaluated.

Results

k‐Halcyon plans were dosimetrically similar or better than m‐Halcyon and c‐Truebeam plans. k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon plan comparisons are presented with respect to c‐Truebeam. Differences in conformity index were statistically insignificant in k‐Halcyon and on average 0.02 higher (p = 0.04) in m‐Halcyon plans. Gradient index was on average 0.43 (p = 0.006) lower and 0.27 (p = 0.02) higher for k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon, respectively. Maximal dose 2 cm away in any direction from target was statistically insignificant. k‐Halcyon increased maximal target dose on average by 2.9 Gy (p < 0.001). Mean lung dose was on average reduced by 0.10 Gy (p = 0.004) in k‐Halcyon and increased by 0.14 Gy (p < 0.001) in m‐Halcyon plans. k‐Halcyon plans lowered bronchial tree dose on average by 1.2 Gy. Beam‐on‐time (BOT) was increased by 2.85 and 1.67 min, on average for k‐Halcyon and m‐Halcyon, respectively. k‐Halcyon plans were generated in under 30 min compared to estimated dedicated 180 ± 30 min for m‐Halcyon or c‐Truebeam plan.

Conclusion

k‐Halcyon plans were generated in under 30 min with excellent plan quality. This adaptable KBP model supports high‐volume clinics in the expansion or transfer of lung SBRT patients to Halcyon.

SBRT treatment of abdominal and pelvic oligometastatic lymph nodes using ring-mounted Halcyon Linac

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

This work seeks to evaluate the plan quality, treatment delivery efficiency, and accuracy of single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic lymph nodes (LNs) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on Halcyon Linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After completing the in-house multitarget end-to-end phantom testing and independent dose verification using MD Anderson's single-isocenter/multi-target (lung and spine target inserts) thorax phantom, eight patients with two to three abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic LNs underwent highly conformal single-isocenter VMAT-SBRT treatment using the Halcyon Linac 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam. Targets were identified using an Axumin PET/CT scan co-registered with planning CT images and a single-isocenter was placed between/among the targets. Doses between 25 and 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were delivered. Patients were treated every other day. Plans were calculated in Eclipse with advanced AcurosXB algorithm for heterogeneity corrections. For comparison, Halcyon VMAT-SBRT plans were retrospectively generated for SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam with a 6MV-FFF beam using identical planning geometry and objectives. Target coverage, conformity index (CI), dose to 2 cm away from each target (D2cm) and dose to adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated. Additionally, various treatment delivery parameters including beam-on time were recorded.

RESULTS

Phantom measurements showed acceptable spatial accuracy of conebeam CT-guided Halcyon SBRT treatments including compliance with MD Anderson's single-isocenter/multi-targets phantom credentialing results. For patients, the mean isocenter to tumor center distance was 3.4 ± 1.2 cm (range, 1.5-4.8 cm). The mean combined PTV was 18.9 ± 10.9 cc (range, 5.6-39.5 cc). There was no clinically significant difference in dose to LNs, CI, D2cm and maximal doses to OAR between single-isocenter Halcyon and Truebeam VMAT-SBRT plans, although, Halcyon plans provided preferably lower maximal dose to adjacent OAR. Additionally, total monitor units, beam-on time and overall treatment time was lower with Halcyon plans. Halcyon's portal dosimetry demonstrated a high pass rate of 98.1 ± 1.6% for clinical gamma passing criteria of 2%/2 mm.

CONCLUSION

SBRT treatment of abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic LNs with single-isocenter VMAT on Halcyon was dosimetrically equivalent to TrueBeam. Faster treatment delivery to oligometastatic LNs via single-isocenter Halcyon VMAT can improve clinic workflow and patient compliance, potentially reducing intrafraction motion errors for well-suited patients. Clinical follow-up of these patients is ongoing.

Technical Note: An alternative approach to verify 6FFF beam dosimetry for Ethos and MR Linac without using a 3D water tank

PURPOSE

The current approach to Linac beam dosimetry verification is typically performed utilizing a three-dimensional (3D) water tank system. The 3D beam scanning process is cumbersome, labor intensive, error-prone, and costly. This is especially challenging for the new Ethos system and MR Linacs with a ring gantry. This work proposes an alternative approach to verify 6FFF beam dosimetry for Ethos, ViewRay MRIdian® Linac, and other Linacs with 6FFF beam quality using two-dimensional (2D) ion chamber arrays.

METHODS

Percentage depth dose (PDD) and profiles of an Ethos, an MRIdian® Linac, and several Linacs with 6FFF beams were measured at the nominal beam current. The beam energy was detuned by changing the bending magnet current on one TrueBeam. PDDs and profiles were measured for detuned beam energies. The peak shape of the 6FFF profile was defined by a "slope" parameter and unflatness. Correlations between peak slope and unflatness metrics vs PDDs were used to evaluate the sensitivity of beam energy to beam profile changes at different field sizes and depths.

RESULTS

Strong correlations were found between peak slope and PDDs for all Linacs with 6FFF beam. The R-squared values in the linear regression fitting between PDD and peak slope and unflatness were 0.99 and 0.84, respectively. Both profile slope and unflatness were proportional to PDD at the 10 cm depth and the peak slope was 4.3 times more sensitive than PDD. We have identified that measurements with a shallow depth are preferred to quantify the beam energy consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work shows the feasibility of verifying 6FFF beam quality of Ethos, MR Linac, and other Linacs by defining a profile slope measured from 2D ionization chambers array devices. This new approach provides a simplified method for performing a routine beam quality check without using a 3D water tank system while maximizing cost effectiveness and efficiency.

Clinical validation of ring-mounted halcyon linac for lung SBRT: comparison to SBRT-dedicated C-arm linac treatments

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung tumors via the ring‐mounted Halcyon Linac, a fast kilovoltage cone beam CT‐guided treatment with coplanar geometry, a single energy 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a fast, safe, and feasible treatment modality for selected lung cancer patients. Four‐dimensional (4D) CT‐based treatment plans were generated using advanced AcurosXB algorithm with heterogeneity corrections using an SBRT board and Halcyon couch insert. Halcyon VMAT‐SBRT plans with stacked and staggered multileaf collimators produced highly conformal radiosurgical dose distribution to the target, lower intermediate dose spillage, and similar dose to adjacent organs at risks (OARs) compared to SBRT‐dedicated highly conformal clinical noncoplanar Truebeam VMAT plans following the RTOG‐0813 requirements. Due to low monitor units per fraction and less multileaf collimator (MLC) modulation, the Halcyon VMAT plan can deliver lung SBRT fractions with an overall treatment time of less than 15 min (for 50 Gy in five fractions), significantly improving patient comfort and clinic workflow. Higher pass rates of quality assurance results demonstrate a more accurate treatment delivery on Halcyon. We have implemented Halcyon for lung SBRT treatment in our clinic. We suggest others use Halcyon for lung SBRT treatments using abdominal compression or 4D CT‐based treatment planning, thus expanding the access of curative ultra‐hypofractionated treatments to other centers with only a Halcyon Linac. Clinical follow‐up results for patients treated on Halcyon Linac with lung SBRT is ongoing.

Prostate SBRT using O-Ring Halcyon Linac - Plan quality, delivery efficiency, and accuracy

Cone beam CT‐guided prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment on the recently installed novel O‐ring coplanar geometry Halcyon Linac with a single energy 6MV‐flattening filter free (FFF) beam and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a fast, safe, and feasible treatment modality for early stage low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer patients. Following the RTOG‐0938 compliance criteria and utilizing two‐full arc geometry, VMAT prostate SBRT plans were generated for ten consecutive patients using advanced Acuros‐based algorithm for heterogeneity corrections with Halcyon couch insert. Halcyon VMAT plans with the stacked and staggered multileaf collimators (MLC) produced highly conformal SBRT dose distributions to the prostate, lower intermediate dose spillage and similar dose to adjacent organs‐at‐risks (OARs) compared to SBRT‐dedicated Truebeam VMAT plans. Due to lower monitor units per fraction and less MLC modulation through the target, the Halcyon VMAT plan can deliver prostate SBRT fractions in and overall treatment time of less than 10 minutes (for 36.25 Gy in five fractions), significantly improving patient compliance and clinic workflow. Pretreatment quality assurance results were similar to Truebeam VMAT plans. We have implemented Halcyon Linac for prostate SBRT treatment in our institution. We recommend that others use Halcyon for prostate SBRT treatments to expand the access of curative hypofractionated treatments to other clinics only equipped with a Halcyon Linac. Clinical follow‐up results for patients who underwent prostate SBRT treatment on our Halcyon Linac is underway.

Beam data modeling of linear accelerators (linacs) through machine learning and its potential applications in fast and robust linac commissioning and quality assurance

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To propose a novel machine learning-based method for reliable and accurate modeling of linac beam data applicable to the processes of linac commissioning and QA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We hypothesize that the beam data is a function of inherent linac features and percentage depth doses (PDDs) and profiles of different field sizes are correlated with each other. The correlation is formulated as a multivariable regression problem using a machine learning framework. Varian TrueBeam beam data sets (n = 43) acquired from multiple institutions were used to evaluate the framework. The data sets included PDDs and profiles across different energies and field sizes. A multivariate regression model was trained for prediction of beam specific PDDs and profiles of different field sizes using a 10 × 10 cm² field as input.

RESULTS

Predictions of PDDs were achieved with a mean absolute percent relative error (%RE) of 0.19-0.35% across the different beam energies investigated. The maximum mean absolute %RE was 0.93%. For profile prediction, the mean absolute %RE was 0.66-0.93% with a maximum absolute %RE of 3.76%. The largest uncertainties in the PDD and profile predictions were found at the build-up region and at the field penumbra, respectively. The prediction accuracy increased with the number of training sets up to around 20 training sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this novel machine learning-based method we have shown accurate and reproducible generation of beam data for linac commissioning for routine radiation therapy. This method has the potential to simplify the linac commissioning procedure, save time and manpower while increasing the accuracy of the commissioning process.