Search

This review details and discusses the technological quality requirements to ensure the desired quality for stereotactic radiotherapy using photon external beam radiotherapy as defined by the DEGRO Working Group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy and the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The covered aspects of this review are 1) imaging for target volume definition, 2) patient positioning and target volume localization, 3) motion management, 4) collimation of the irradiation and beam directions, 5) dose calculation, 6) treatment unit accuracy, and 7) dedicated quality assurance measures. For each part, an expert review for current state-of-the-art techniques and their particular technological quality requirement to reach the necessary accuracy for stereotactic radiotherapy divided into intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery in one single fraction (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is presented. All recommendations and suggestions for all mentioned aspects of stereotactic radiotherapy are formulated and related uncertainties and potential sources of error discussed. Additionally, further research and development needs in terms of insufficient data and unsolved problems for stereotactic radiotherapy are identified, which will serve as a basis for the future assignments of the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The review was group peer-reviewed, and consensus was obtained through multiple working group meetings.

Purpose: To investigate the quality of treatment plans of spinal radiosurgery derived from different planning and delivery systems. The comparisons include robotic delivery and intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) approaches. Multiple centers with equal systems were used to reduce a bias based on individual's planning abilities. The study used a series of three complex spine lesions to maximize the difference in plan quality among the various approaches., Methods: Internationally recognized experts in the field of treatment planning and spinal radiosurgery from 12 centers with various treatment planning systems participated. For a complex spinal lesion, the results were compared against a previously published benchmark plan derived for CyberKnife radiosurgery (CKRS) using circular cones only. For two additional cases, one with multiple small lesions infiltrating three vertebrae and a single vertebra lesion treated with integrated boost, the results were compared against a benchmark plan generated using a best practice guideline for CKRS. All plans were rated based on a previously established ranking system., Results: All 12 centers could reach equality (n = 4) or outperform (n = 8) the benchmark plan. For the multiple lesions and the single vertebra lesion plan only 5 and 3 of the 12 centers, respectively, reached equality or outperformed the best practice benchmark plan. However, the absolute differences in target and critical structure dosimetry were small and strongly planner-dependent rather than system-dependent. Overall, gantry-based IMAT with simple planning techniques (two coplanar arcs) produced faster treatments and significantly outperformed static gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and multileaf collimator (MLC) or non-MLC CKRS treatment plan quality regardless of the system (mean rank out of 4 was 1.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002)., Conclusions: High plan quality for complex spinal radiosurgery was achieved among all systems and all participating centers in this planning challenge. This study concludes that simple IMAT techniques can generate significantly better plan quality compared to previous established CKRS benchmarks.

Purpose: This study compares the quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans optimized for an Elekta Agility(TM) (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) multileaf collimator (MLC; leaf width 5 mm) and an Elekta MLCi2 (leaf width 10 mm) for complex target volumes (anal, AC; head and neck, H&N and prostate cancer, PC)., Patients and Methods: For plan comparisons, 15 patients who had been treated with IMRT or VMAT using the MLCi2 were selected. For each patient, a retrospective treatment plan using the MLCi2 for the technique not applied was created, as were treatment plans for both techniques using the Agility(TM) MLC. Dose-volume histograms (DHVs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Further parameters relating to dose conformity, dose homogeneity and mean dose (Dmean) to the PTV, compliance with the intended OAR dose criteria and overall dose to normal tissue were analyzed. Verification measurements were performed and optimization and treatment times were compared., Results: Compared to the MLCi2 plans, the Agility(TM) IMRT and VMAT plans show better or equivalent results in terms of PTV dose conformity and homogeneity. Compliance with the intended OAR dose criteria does not differ according to technique or MLC type. Slight differences are shown for dose distributions in OARs and normal tissue. Verification measurements show that all plans fulfill the acceptance criteria of a minimum of 95 % matched dose points for the 3 %/3 mm γ criterion. Optimization times for the VMAT plans increase compared to the IMRT plans, whereas treatment times decrease., Conclusion: With the MLCi2, treatment of complex target volumes with VMAT was only possible with compromises in terms of target coverage. Using the Agility(TM) MLC, even complex target volumes can be treated with VMAT without compromising target coverage or resulting in higher exposure of OARs or normal tissue.