Real time tracking in liver SBRT: comparison of CyberKnife and Vero by planning structure-based γ-evaluation and dose-area-histograms

TY - JOUR

T1 - Real time tracking in liver SBRT: comparison of CyberKnife and Vero by planning structure-based γ-evaluation and dose-area-histograms

AU - Sothmann, T

AU - Blanck, O

AU - Poels, K

AU - Werner, R

AU - Gauer, T

PY - 2016/2/21

Y1 - 2016/2/21

N2 - The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare two clinical tracking systems for radiosurgery with regard to their dosimetric and geometrical accuracy in liver SBRT: the robot-based CyberKnife and the gimbal-based Vero. Both systems perform real-time tumour tracking by correlating internal tumour and external surrogate motion. CyberKnife treatment plans were delivered to a high resolution 2D detector array mounted on a 4D motion platform, with the platform simulating (a) tumour motion trajectories extracted from the corresponding CyberKnife predictor log files and (b) the tumour motion trajectories with superimposed baseline-drift. Static reference and tracked dose measurements were compared and dosimetric as well as geometrical uncertainties analyzed by a planning structure-based evaluation. For (a), γ-passing rates inside the CTV (γ-criteria of 1% / 1 mm) ranged from 95% to 100% (CyberKnife) and 98% to 100% (Vero). However, dosimetric accuracy decreases in the presence of the baseline-drift. γ-passing rates for (b) ranged from 26% to 92% and 94% to 99%, respectively; i.e. the effect was more pronounced for CyberKnife. In contrast, the Vero system led to maximum dose deviations in the OAR between  +1.5 Gy to  +6.0 Gy (CyberKnife:  +0.5 Gy to  +3.5 Gy). Potential dose shifts were interpreted as motion-induced geometrical tracking errors. Maximum observed shift ranges were  -1.0 mm to  +0.7 mm (lateral) /-0.6 mm to  +0.1 mm (superior-inferior) for CyberKnife and  -0.8 mm to  +0.2 mm /-0.8 mm to  +0.4 mm for Vero. These values illustrate that CyberKnife and Vero provide high precision tracking of regular breathing patterns. Even for the modified motion trajectory, the obtained dose distributions appear to be clinical acceptable with regard to literature QA γ-criteria of 3% / 3 mm.

AB - The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare two clinical tracking systems for radiosurgery with regard to their dosimetric and geometrical accuracy in liver SBRT: the robot-based CyberKnife and the gimbal-based Vero. Both systems perform real-time tumour tracking by correlating internal tumour and external surrogate motion. CyberKnife treatment plans were delivered to a high resolution 2D detector array mounted on a 4D motion platform, with the platform simulating (a) tumour motion trajectories extracted from the corresponding CyberKnife predictor log files and (b) the tumour motion trajectories with superimposed baseline-drift. Static reference and tracked dose measurements were compared and dosimetric as well as geometrical uncertainties analyzed by a planning structure-based evaluation. For (a), γ-passing rates inside the CTV (γ-criteria of 1% / 1 mm) ranged from 95% to 100% (CyberKnife) and 98% to 100% (Vero). However, dosimetric accuracy decreases in the presence of the baseline-drift. γ-passing rates for (b) ranged from 26% to 92% and 94% to 99%, respectively; i.e. the effect was more pronounced for CyberKnife. In contrast, the Vero system led to maximum dose deviations in the OAR between  +1.5 Gy to  +6.0 Gy (CyberKnife:  +0.5 Gy to  +3.5 Gy). Potential dose shifts were interpreted as motion-induced geometrical tracking errors. Maximum observed shift ranges were  -1.0 mm to  +0.7 mm (lateral) /-0.6 mm to  +0.1 mm (superior-inferior) for CyberKnife and  -0.8 mm to  +0.2 mm /-0.8 mm to  +0.4 mm for Vero. These values illustrate that CyberKnife and Vero provide high precision tracking of regular breathing patterns. Even for the modified motion trajectory, the obtained dose distributions appear to be clinical acceptable with regard to literature QA γ-criteria of 3% / 3 mm.

U2 - 10.1088/0031-9155/61/4/1677

DO - 10.1088/0031-9155/61/4/1677

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 26836488

VL - 61

SP - 1677

EP - 1691

JO - PHYS MED BIOL

JF - PHYS MED BIOL

SN - 0031-9155

IS - 4

ER -