Search

For daily CyberKnife QA a Winston-Lutz-Test (Automated-Quality-Assurance, AQA) is used to determine sub-millimeter deviations in beam delivery accuracy. This test is performed using gafchromic film, an extensive and user-dependent method requiring the use of disposables. We therefore analyzed the usability and accuracy of high-resolution detector arrays. We analyzed a liquid-filled ionization-chamber array (Octavius 1000SRS, PTW, Germany), which has a central resolution of 2.5mm. To test sufficient sensitivity, beam profiles with robot shifts of 0.1mm along the arrays' axes were measured. The detected deviation between the shifted and central profile were compared to the real robot's position. We then compared the results to the SRS-Profiler (SunNuclear, USA) with 4.0mm resolution and to the Nonius (QUART, Germany), a single-line diode detector with 2.8mm resolution. Finally, AQA variance and usability were analyzed performing a number of AQA tests over time, which required the use of specially designed fixtures for each array, and the results were compared to film. Concerning sensitivity, the 1000SRS detected the beam profile shifts with a maximum difference of 0.11mm (mean deviation = 0.03mm) compared to the actual robot shift. The Nonius and SRS-Profiler showed differences of up to 0.15mm and 0.69mm with mean deviation of 0.05mm and 0.18mm, respectively. Analyzing the variation of AQA results over time, the 1000SRS showed a comparable standard deviation to film (0.26mm vs. 0.18mm). The SRS-Profiler and the Nonius showed a standard deviation of 0.16mm and 0.24mm, respectively. The 1000SRS seems to provide equivalent accuracy and sensitivity to the gold standard film when performing daily AQA tests. Compared to other detectors in our study the sensitivity as well as the accuracy of the 1000SRS appears to be superior and more user-friendly. Furthermore, no significant modification of the standard AQA procedure is required when introducing 1000SRS for CyberKnife AQA.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For locally recurrent head and neck cancer, re‐irradiation with modern techniques like stereotactic body radiotherapy is a promising, possibly curative alternative to palliative systemic therapy. Methods: We report on 1 patient with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and 1 patient with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Both patients received full dose primary treatment (>66 Gy, EQD2), full dose re‐irradiation (>50 Gy, EQD2), and a second course of re‐irradiation via robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife) for a second local recurrence. Results: Both treatments resulted in adequate tumor response. No grade III‐IV acute or late toxicities occurred. Follow‐up at 6 months after third irradiation showed partial remission for the patient with NPC. In the second case (SCC), no toxicities occurred and the tumor was in remission 18 months after last treatment. Conclusion: These cases show that a second course of re‐irradiation utilizing modern techniques like robotic radiosurgery might be feasible for carefully selected patients with head and neck cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]