Conventionally fractionated large volume head and neck re-irradiation using multileaf collimator-based robotic technique: A feasibility study

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.

Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice.

METHODS

We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.