Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife

With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4 months before (n = 297) and 4 months after (n = 285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from −14% (BS Iris) to −52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from −11% (BS Iris) to −22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were −4.6%, −22.2%, and −17.8% for treatment time reduction, −1.1%, −22.0%, and −28.4% for beam reduction and −3.2%, −21.8%, and −28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer.

Clinical outcomes of multileaf collimator-based CyberKnife for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases is becoming a prevalent therapeutic option. We aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of the recently developed multileaf collimator (MLC)-based CyberKnife (CK-M) for spine SBRT.

METHODS

We reviewed 119 patients of 144 cases with 229 lesions treated with CK between November 2014 and March 2016. The lesion features, dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared between fixed cone collimator based CK (CK-F) and CK-M.

RESULTS

Of 144 cases, 78 and 66 were treated with CK-F and CK-M, respectively. CK-M achieved an adequate target volume coverage that was comparable with CK-F (median 92 vs 90%; p = 0.03) even in larger targets (median 64.2 vs 46.7 cm3; p = 0.01), respectively. CK-M showed an improvement in the gradient index (p < 0.001) and no difference in conformity (p = 0.16). With CK-M, the median beam delivery time was significantly reduced by 30% (to 34 vs 48 min; p < 0.001). CK-M showed 1 year local control rates that were comparable to CK-F (77 vs 78%, respectively; p = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

CK-M exhibits dosimetric data and local control that are comparable with CK-F, but with significant treatment time reduction. CK-M could be widely used in spine SBRT. Advances in knowledge: Given the recently developed MLC in CK, we aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of MLC compared with fixed cone-based CK. MLC showed equivalent plan quality and significant treatment time reduction with comparable radiological control. We report here MLC as an effective and tolerable treatment option in CK.

Determination of kQ using MLC-collimated rectangular fields for absolute dosimetry of the CyberKnife

Traditional CyberKnife (CK) calibration uses TG‐51, which requires kQ to be defined using the standard reference condition of 100 cm SSD in a 10 cm×10 cm field. Since the CK is calibrated using a 6 cm fixed‐aperture collimating cone at 80 cm SAD, the BJR‐25 method is commonly used to relate circular‐field PDDs to square‐field PDDs for kQ determination. Using the InCise MLC system, the CK is able to deliver rectangular fields, allowing a more direct measurement of %dd(10 cm) using conventional reference conditions. We define the PDD correction factor (CPDD) as the ratio of %dd(10 cm) measured using CK reference conditions to that measured using standard TG‐51 reference conditions. Using four ionization chambers (A1SL, CC08, CC13, and A19), %dd(10 cm) is measured using a 6 cm fixed cone at 80 cm SSD and at 100 cm SSD using an effective 10 cm×10 cm MLC‐collimated field. These values are used to calculate CPDD, while the latter is used to directly calculate a kQ value. This direct kQ value is then compared to values determined using the BJR‐25 method. Using the MLC system, this study demonstrates conversion between the %dd(10 cm) measured using CyberKnife reference conditions and TG‐51 reference conditions. These values provide the means for derivation of a kQ curve as a function of direct measurements of %dd(10 cm) using a 6 cm fixed‐aperture collimating cone at 80 cm SSD.

PACS number: 87.55.Qr