Vendor-independent Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation (IDC) for patient-specific quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) based CyberKnife treatments is used to benchmark and validate the commercial MC dose calculation engine for MLC based treatments built into the CyberKnife treatment planning system (Precision MC).The benchmark included dose profiles in water in 15 mm depth and depth dose curves of rectangular MLC shaped fields ranging from 7.6 mm × 7.7 mm to 115.0 mm × 100.1 mm, which were compared between IDC, Precision MC and measurements in terms of dose difference and distance to agreement. Dose distributions of three phantom cases and seven clinical lung cases were calculated using both IDC and Precision MC. The lung PTVs ranged from 14 cm3 to 93 cm3. Quantitative comparison of these dose distributions was performed using dose-volume parameters and 3D gamma analysis with 2% global dose difference and 1 mm distance criteria and a global 10% dose threshold. Time to calculate dose distributions was recorded and efficiency was assessed.Absolute dose profiles in 15 mm depth in water showed agreement between Precision MC and IDC within 3.1% or 1 mm. Depth dose curves agreed within 2.3% / 1 mm. For the phantom and clinical lung cases, mean PTV doses differed from - 1.0 to + 2.3% between IDC and Precision MC and gamma passing rates were > =98.1% for all multiple beam treatment plans. For the lung cases, lung V20 agreed within ±1.5%. Calculation times ranged from 2.2 min (for 39 cm3 PTV at 1.0 × 1.0 × 2.5 mm3 native CT resolution) to 8.1 min (93 cm3 at 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.0 mm3), at 2% uncertainty for Precision MC for the 7 examined lung cases and 4-6 h for IDC, which, however, is not optimized for efficiency but used as a gold standard for accuracy.Both accuracy and efficiency of Precision MC in the context of MLC based planning for the CyberKnife M6 system were benchmarked against MC based IDC framework. Precision MC is used in clinical practice at our institute.
Abstract Objective. Real-time respiratory tumor tracking as implemented in a robotic treatment unit is based on continuous optical measurement of the position of external markers and a correlation model between them and internal target positions, which are established with X-ray imaging of the tumor, or fiducials placed in or around the tumor. Correlation models are created with fifteen simultaneously measured external/internal marker position pairs divided over the respiratory cycle. Every 45–150 s, the correlation model is updated by replacing the three first acquired data pairs with three new pairs. Tracking simulations for >120.000 computer-generated respiratory tracks demonstrated that this tracking approach resulted in relevant inaccuracies in internal target position predictions, especially in case of presence of respiratory motion baseline drifts. Approach. To better cope with drifts, we introduced a novel correlation model with an explicit time dependence, and we proposed to replace the currently applied linear-motion tracking (LMT) by mixed-model tracking (MMT). In MMT, the linear correlation model is extended with an explicit time dependence in case of a detected baseline drift. MMT prediction accuracies were then established for the same >120.000 computer-generated patients as used for LMT. Main results. For 150 s update intervals, MMT outperformed LMT in internal target position prediction accuracy for 93.7 ∣ 97.2% of patients with 0.25 ∣ 0.5 mm min −1 linear respiratory motion baseline drifts with similar numbers of X-ray images and similar treatment times. For the upper 25% of patients, mean 3D internal target position prediction errors reduced by 0.7 ∣ 1.8 mm, while near maximum reductions (upper 10% of patients) were 0.9 ∣ 2.0 mm. Significance. For equal numbers of acquired X-ray images, MMT greatly improved tracking accuracy compared to LMT, especially in the presence of baseline drifts. Even with almost 50% less acquired X-ray images, MMT still outperformed LMT in internal target position prediction accuracy.
Small field dosimetry correction factors are usually determined from calculations or measurements using one specific example of a treatment system. The sensitivity of the corrections to inter-unit variation is therefore not evaluated. We propose two methods for this evaluation that could be applied to any system. We use them to assess the variability in [Formula: see text] for the CyberKnife System caused by design changes between pre-M6 and M6 versions, and to the variability in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] resulting from measured beam-data variations across 139 units. We also perform measurements to investigate the differences in [Formula: see text] reported for microchambers in a CyberKnife-specific study versus TRS-483. The results show that [Formula: see text] is smaller for the M6 version than pre-M6 versions by 0.4% for a Farmer chamber, and 0.1% for shorter chambers. The presence or absence of a lead filter within the treatment head had no significant impact on [Formula: see text]. The beam-data analysis showed inter-unit variations in [Formula: see text] of ±0.8% (2 s.d.) for Farmer chambers and ⩽ ±0.5% for shorter cavities (<10 mm) pre-M6, reducing to 0.4% and 0.2% respectively with M6. Inter-unit [Formula: see text] variations for microDiamond and microchambers were ⩽ ±1% at 5 mm field size, except for microchambers with axis perpendicular to the beam where this was > ±2%. Differences of up to 9% were confirmed between Output Factors measured using a microchamber and corrected using TRS-483 [Formula: see text], and a consensus dataset for the same treatment unit determined using multiple detectors and Monte Carlo simulation. A set of practical recommendations for small field dosimetry with the CyberKnife System is derived from these results.