skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-G-TeP4-12: Individual Beam QA for a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillator Cone

Abstract

Purpose: The targeting accuracy of the Cyberknife system is measured by end-to-end tests delivering multiple isocentric beams to a point in space. While the targeting accuracy of two representative beams can be determined by a Winston-Lutz-type test, no test is available today to determine the targeting accuracy of each clinical beam. We used a scintillator cone to measure the accuracy of each individual beam. Methods: The XRV-124 from Logos Systems Int’l is a scintillator cone with an imaging system that is able to measure individual beam vectors and a resulting error between planned and measured beam coordinates. We measured the targeting accuracy of isocentric and non-isocentric beams for a number of test cases using the Iris and the fixed collimator. The average difference between plan and measured beam position was 0.8–1.2mm across the collimator sizes and plans considered here. The max error for a single beam was 2.5mm for the isocentric plans, and 1.67mm for the non-isocentric plans. The standard deviation of the differences was 0.5mm or less. Conclusion: The CyberKnife System is specified to have an overall targeting accuracy for static targets of less than 0.95mm. In E2E tests using the XRV124 system we measure average beam accuracy betweenmore » 0.8 to 1.23mm, with maximum of 2.5mm. We plan to investigate correlations between beam position error and robot position, and to quantify the effect of beam position errors on patient specific plans. Martina Descovich has received research support and speaker honoraria from Accuray.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649474
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ACCURACY; BEAM POSITION; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; ERRORS; PHOSPHORS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIOTHERAPY; ROBOTS; SURGERY

Citation Formats

McGuinness, C, Descovich, M, and Sudhyadhom, A. SU-G-TeP4-12: Individual Beam QA for a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillator Cone. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957137.
McGuinness, C, Descovich, M, & Sudhyadhom, A. SU-G-TeP4-12: Individual Beam QA for a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillator Cone. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957137.
McGuinness, C, Descovich, M, and Sudhyadhom, A. Wed . "SU-G-TeP4-12: Individual Beam QA for a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillator Cone". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957137.
@article{osti_22649474,
title = {SU-G-TeP4-12: Individual Beam QA for a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillator Cone},
author = {McGuinness, C and Descovich, M and Sudhyadhom, A},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The targeting accuracy of the Cyberknife system is measured by end-to-end tests delivering multiple isocentric beams to a point in space. While the targeting accuracy of two representative beams can be determined by a Winston-Lutz-type test, no test is available today to determine the targeting accuracy of each clinical beam. We used a scintillator cone to measure the accuracy of each individual beam. Methods: The XRV-124 from Logos Systems Int’l is a scintillator cone with an imaging system that is able to measure individual beam vectors and a resulting error between planned and measured beam coordinates. We measured the targeting accuracy of isocentric and non-isocentric beams for a number of test cases using the Iris and the fixed collimator. The average difference between plan and measured beam position was 0.8–1.2mm across the collimator sizes and plans considered here. The max error for a single beam was 2.5mm for the isocentric plans, and 1.67mm for the non-isocentric plans. The standard deviation of the differences was 0.5mm or less. Conclusion: The CyberKnife System is specified to have an overall targeting accuracy for static targets of less than 0.95mm. In E2E tests using the XRV124 system we measure average beam accuracy between 0.8 to 1.23mm, with maximum of 2.5mm. We plan to investigate correlations between beam position error and robot position, and to quantify the effect of beam position errors on patient specific plans. Martina Descovich has received research support and speaker honoraria from Accuray.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957137},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: To systematically investigate an ultra-high spatial-resolution amorphous silicon flat-panel electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for MLC-based full-body robotic radiosurgery geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA). Methods: The high frame-rate and ultra-high spatial resolution EPID is an outstanding detector for measuring profiles, MLC-shaped radiosurgery field aperture verification, and small field dosimetry. A Monte Carlo based technique with a robotic linac specific response and calibration is developed to convert a raw EPID-measured image of a radiosurgery field into water-based dose distribution. The technique is applied to measure output factors and profiles for 6MV MLC-defined radiosurgery fields with various sizes ranging frommore » 7.6mm×7.7mm to 100mm×100.1mm and the results are compared with the radiosurgery diode scan measurements in water tank. The EPID measured field sizes and the penumbra regions are analyzed to evaluate the MLC positioning accuracy. Results: For all MLC fields, the EPID measured output factors of MLC-shaped fields are in good agreement with the diode measurements. The mean output difference between the EPID and diode measurement is 0.05±0.87%. The max difference is −1.33% for 7.6mm×7.7mm field. The MLC field size derived from the EPID measurements are in good agreement comparing to the diode scan result. For crossline field sizes, the mean difference is −0.17mm±0.14mm with a maximum of −0.35mm for the 30.8mm×30.8mm field. For inline field sizes, the mean difference is +0.08mm±0.18mm with a maximum of +0.45mm for the 100mm×100.1mm field. The high resolution EPID is able to measure the whole radiation field, without the need to align the detector center perfectly at field center as diode or ion chamber measurement. The setup time is greatly reduced so that the whole process is possible for machine and patient-specific QA. Conclusion: The high spatial-resolution EPID is proved to be an accurate and efficient tool for QA of MLC-equipped robotic radiosurgery system.« less
  • Purpose: Prior to treating new PBS field, multiple (three) patient-field-specific QA measurements are performed: two 2D dose distributions at shallow depth (M1) and at the tumor depth (M2) with treatment hardware at zero gantry angle; one 2D dose distribution at iso-center (M3) without patient specific devices at the planned gantry angle. This patient-specific QA could be simplified by the use of MC model. The results of MC model commissioning for a spot-scanning system and the fully automated TOPAS/MC-based QA framework will be presented. Methods: We have developed in-house MC interface to access a TPS (Astroid) database from a computer clustermore » remotely. Once a plan is identified, the interface downloads information for the MC simulations, such as patient images, apertures points, and fluence maps and initiates calculations in both the patient and QA geometries. The resulting calculations are further analyzed to evaluate the TPS dose accuracy and the PBS delivery. Results: The Monte Carlo model of our system was validated within 2.0 % accuracy over the whole range of the dose distribution (proximal/shallow part, as well as target dose part) due to the location of the measurements. The averaged range difference after commissioning was 0.25 mm over entire treatment ranges, e.g., 6.5 cm to 31.6 cm. Conclusion: As M1 depths range typically from 1 cm to 4 cm from the phantom surface, The Monte Carlo model of our system was validated within +− 2.0 % in absolute dose level over a whole treatment range. The averaged range difference after commissioning was 0.25 mm over entire treatment ranges, e.g., 6.5 cm to 31.6 cm. This work was supported by NIH/NCI under CA U19 21239.« less
  • Purpose: A novel end-to-end system using a CCD camera and a scintillator based phantom that is capable of measuring the beam-by-beam delivery accuracy of Robotic Radiosurgery has been developed and reported in our previous work. This work investigates its application to end-to-end type daily QA for Robotic Radiosurgery (Cyberknife) with Variable Aperture Collimator (Iris). Methods: The phantom was first scanned with a CT scanner at 0.625 slice thickness and exported to the Cyberknife Muliplan (v4.6) treatment planning system. An isocentric treatment plan was created consisting of ten beams of 25 Monitor Units each using Iris apertures of 7.5, 10, 15,more » 20, and 25 mm. The plan was delivered six times in two days on the Cyberknife G4 system with fiducial tracking on the four metal fiducials embedded in phantom with re-positioning between the measurements. The beam vectors (X, Y, Z) are measured and compared with the plan from the machine delivery file (XML file). The Iris apertures (FWHM) were measured from the beam flux map and compared with the commissioning data. Results: The average beam positioning accuracies of the six deliveries are 0.71 ± 0.40 mm, 0.72 ± 0.44 mm, 0.74 ± 0.42 mm, 0.70 ± 0.40 mm, 0.79 ± 0.44 mm and 0.69 ± 0.41 mm respectively. Radiation beam width (FWHM) variations are within ±0.05 mm, and they agree with the commissioning data within 0.22 mm. The delivery time for the plan is about 7 minutes and the results are given instantly. Conclusion: The experimental results agree with stated sub-millimeter delivery accuracy of Cyberknife system. Beam FWHM variations comply with the 0.2 mm accuracy of the Iris collimator at SAD. The XRV-100 system has proven to be a powerful tool in performing end-to-end type tests for Robotic Image Guided Radiosurgery Daily QA.« less
  • Purpose: There is potentially a wide variation in plan quality for a certain disease site, even for clinics located in the same system of hospitals. We have used a prostate-specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) model as a quality control tool to investigate the variation in prostate treatment planning across a network of affiliated radiation oncology departments. Methods: A previously created KBP model was applied to 10 patients each from 4 community-based clinics (Clinics A, B, C, and D). The KBP model was developed using RapidPlan (Eclipse v13.5, Varian Medical Systems) from 60 prostate/prostate bed IMRT plans that were originally planned usingmore » an in-house treatment planning system at the central institution of the community-based clinics. The dosimetric plan quality (target coverage and normal-tissue sparing) of each model-generated plan was compared to the respective clinically-used plan. Each community-based clinic utilized the same planning goals to develop the clinically-used plans that were used at the main institution. Results: Across all 4 clinics, the model-generated plans decreased the mean dose to the rectum by varying amounts (on average, 12.5, 2.6, 4.5, and 2.7 Gy for Clinics A, B, C, and D, respectively). The mean dose to the bladder also decreased with the model-generated plans (5.4, 2.3, 3.0, and 4.1 Gy, respectively). The KBP model also identified that target coverage (D95%) improvements were possible for for Clinics A, B, and D (0.12, 1.65, and 2.75%) while target coverage decreased by 0.72% for Clinic C, demonstrating potentially different trade-offs made in clinical plans at different institutions. Conclusion: Quality control of dosimetric plan quality across a system of radiation oncology practices is possible with knowledge-based planning. By using a quality KBP model, smaller community-based clinics can potentially identify the areas of their treatment plans that may be improved, whether it be in normal-tissue sparing or improved target coverage. M. Matuszak has research funding for KBP from Varian Medical Systems.« less
  • Purpose: To implement a comprehensive non-measurement-based verification program for patient-specific IMRT QA Methods: Based on published guidelines, a robust IMRT QA program should assess the following components: 1) accuracy of dose calculation, 2) accuracy of data transfer from the treatment planning system (TPS) to the record-and-verify (RV) system, 3) treatment plan deliverability, and 4) accuracy of plan delivery. Results: We have implemented an IMRT QA program that consist of four components: 1) an independent re-calculation of the dose distribution in the patient anatomy with a commercial secondary dose calculation program: Mobius3D (Mobius Medical Systems, Houston, TX), with dose accuracy evaluationmore » using gamma analysis, PTV mean dose, PTV coverage to 95%, and organ-at-risk mean dose; 2) an automated in-house-developed plan comparison system that compares all relevant plan parameters such as MU, MLC position, beam iso-center position, collimator, gantry, couch, field size settings, and bolus placement, etc. between the plan and the RV system; 3) use of the RV system to check the plan deliverability and further confirm using “mode-up” function on treatment console for plans receiving warning; and 4) implementation of a comprehensive weekly MLC QA, in addition to routine accelerator monthly and daily QA. Among 1200 verifications, there were 9 cases of suspicious calculations, 5 cases of delivery failure, no data transfer errors, and no failure of weekly MLC QA. These 9 suspicious cases were due to the PTV extending to the skin or to heterogeneity correction effects, which would not have been caught using phantom measurement-based QA. The delivery failure was due to the rounding variation of MLC position between the planning system and RV system. Conclusion: A very efficient, yet comprehensive, non-measurement-based patient-specific QA program has been implemented and used clinically for about 18 months with excellent results.« less