Feasibility study of a multi-lesion cyberknife radiotherapy plan verification method using a 2D array with pre-set roll angles

Abstract

Background: When validating intracranial multi-lesion CyberKnife M6/S7 plans with SRSmapcheck, setting the array to a fixed 0° measures only one target dose distribution, leaving the other lesions unmeasured. Moreover, the CyberKnife treatment planning system does not support roll verification tools, and testing confirms that X-sight fiducial marker guidance is incompatible with free array roll. A novel method and workflow are required to validate multi-lesion plans with random positions.

Methods: A geometric model was established based on the relationship between SRSmapcheck and the tumor location. For two tumors spaced 77 mm apart (each 20 mm in diameter, or one 40 mm apart and the other infinitesimally small), the corresponding array roll angle interval was approximately 15.05°. The SRSmapcheck and StereoPHAN computed tomography (CT) images were acquired at 15° intervals, starting at 0°, and preprocessed into phantom plans for verification. A total of 101 intracranial multi-lesion plans were verified using the fixed 0° and pre-set roll angle methods to optimize the dose distribution, particularly in high-dose and rapidly varying areas. A two-sample test compared the results of the 0° versus pre-set roll angle verification and assessed the performance under different criteria to determine suitable criteria for pre-set roll angle verification.

Results: The equivalent diameter of the 296 tumors ranged from 5 to 45 mm (average: 21.86 mm). Each plan had an average of 2.97 lesions. Using the pre-set roll angle method, 2.34 targets were assessed on average (89.83% of lesions had diameters ranging from 10 to 40 mm), compared to 1.32 targets on average in 0° plans. Statistically significant differences occurred at 2 mm/1% and 2 mm/2% in the γ analysis, showing that plan pass rates were stable between the fixed 0° and pre-set roll angle methods. Relaxing either the distance to agreement or dose deviation significantly increased the pass rates during pre-set roll angle verification, whereas cross-transforming criteria had minimal impact. For pre-set roll angle methods, it is recommended to use 1 mm/1% (action limit: 86.0% ± 13.3%) and 1 mm/2% (action limits: 91.6% ± 7.9%) for γ analysis.

Conclusion: SRSmapcheck with the pre-set roll angle method can verify intracranial multi-lesion CyberKnife plans by measuring multiple targets in a single validation and comparing the 1 mm/1% and 1 mm/2% γ analysis criteria.

Keywords

2D array / cyberknife / multi-lesions / plan verification / pre-set roll angle / stereotactic radiosurgery

References

[1] Aizer AA, Lee EQ. Brain Metastases. Neurol Clin. 2018; 36(3): 557-577.

[2] Mann J, Ramakrishna R, Magge R, Wernicke AG. Advances in Radiotherapy for Glioblastoma. Front Neurol. 2017; 8: 748.

[3] Matsui JK, Perlow HK, Upadhyay R, et al. Advances in Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2023; 32(3): 569-586.

[4] Brown PD, Jaeckle K, Ballman KV, et al. Effect of Radiosurgery Alone vs Radiosurgery With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama. 2016; 316(4): 401-409.

[5] Niranjan A, Monaco E, Flickinger J, Lunsford LD. Guidelines for Multiple Brain Metastases Radiosurgery. Prog Neurol Surg. 2019; 34: 100-109.

[6] Rusthoven CG, Yamamoto M, Bernhardt D, et al. Evaluation of First-line Radiosurgery vs Whole-Brain Radiotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer Brain Metastases: The FIRE-SCLC Cohort Study. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6(7): 1028-1037.

[7] Schiff D, Messersmith H, Brastianos PK, et al. Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Endorsement of ASTRO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40(20): 2271-2276.

[8] Vogelbaum MA, Brown PD, Messersmith H, et al. Treatment for Brain Metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40(5): 492-516.

[9] Wan C, Chen B, Liu Y, Xu X. Whole-brain radiation therapy alone vs. combined therapy with stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of limited brain metastases: A systematic review. Oncology and Translational Medicine. 2019; 5(3): 114-118.

[10] Yamamoto M, Serizawa T, Shuto T, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(4): 387-395.

[11] Telentschak S, Ruess D, Grau S, et al. Cyberknife(®) hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (CK-hSRS) as salvage treatment for brain metastases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021; 147(9): 2765-2773.

[12] La Rosa A, Wieczorek DJJ, Tolakanahalli R, et al. Dosimetric Impact of Lesion Number, Size, and Volume on Mean Brain Dose with Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Multiple Brain Metastases. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(3): 780.

[13] Wang B, Yang J. New technologies and machines for stereotactic radiation therapy. Prec Radiat Oncol. 2022; 6(4): 321-327.

[14] Dieterich S, Cavedon C, Chuang CF, et al. Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery. Med Phys.2011; 38(6): 2914-2936.

[15] Kawata K, Kamomae T, Oguchi H, et al. Evaluation of newly implemented dose calculation algorithms for multileaf collimator-based CyberKnife tumor-tracking radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2020; 47(3): 1391-1403.

[16] Heidorn SC, Kilby W, Fürweger C. Novel Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for robotic radiosurgery with multi leaf collimator: Dosimetric evaluation. Phys Med. 2018; 55: 25-32.

[17] Liang B, Li Y, Liu B, Zhou F, Xu S, Wu Q. A pencil beam dose calculation model for CyberKnife system. Med Phys. 2016; 43(10): 5380.

[18] Duchaine J, Wahl M, Markel D, Bouchard H. A probabilistic approach for determining Monte Carlo beam source parameters: II. Impact of beam modeling uncertainties on dosimetric functions and treatment plans. Phys Med Biol. 2022; 67(4).

[19] Ahmed S, Zhang G, Moros EG, Feygelman V. Comprehensive evaluation of the high-resolution diode array for SRS dosimetry. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(10): 13-23.

[20] Churilla TM, Chowdhury IH, Handorf E, et al. Comparison of Local Control of Brain Metastases With Stereotactic Radiosurgery vs Surgical Resection: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5(2): 243-247.

[21] James S, Al-Basheer A, Elder E, et al. Evaluation of commercial devices for patient specific QA of stereotactic radiotherapy plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023: e14009.

[22] Rose MS, Tirpak L, Van Casteren K, et al. Multi-institution validation of a new high spatial resolution diode array for SRS and SBRT plan pretreatment quality assurance. Med Phys. 2020; 47(7): 3153-3164.

[23] Xu Q, Huynh K, Nie W, et al. Implementing and evaluating a high-resolution diode array for patient-specific quality assurance of robotic brain stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(5): e13569.

[24] Reynolds TA, Jensen AR, Bellairs EE, Ozer M. Dose Gradient Index for Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020; 106(3): 604-611.

[25] Xia Y, Adamson J, Zlateva Y, Giles W. Application of TG-218 action limits to SRS and SBRT pre-treatment patient specific QA. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2020; 7(2): 135-147.

[26] Jung J, Song SY, Yoon SM, et al. Verification of Accuracy of CyberKnife Tumor-tracking Radiation Therapy Using Patient-specific Lung Phantoms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 92(4): 745-753.

[27] Klein TJ, Gill S, Ebert MA, et al. CyberKnife Xsight versus fiducial-based target-tracking: a novel 3D dosimetric comparison in a dynamic phantom. Radiat Oncol. 2022; 17(1): 154.

[28] Depuydt T, Van Esch A, Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2002; 62(3): 309-319.

[29] Bassinet C, Huet C, Derreumaux S, et al. Small fields output factors measurements and correction factors determination for several detectors for a CyberKnife® and linear accelerators equipped with microMLC and circular cones. Med Phys. 2013; 40(7): 071725.

[30] Banos-Capilla MC, Lago-Martin JD, Gil P, Larrea LM. Sensitivity and specificity analysis of 2D small field measurement array: Patient-specific quality assurance of small target treatments and spatially fractionated radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021; 22(10): 104-119.

[31] Lee TK. Technical note: Patient-specific quality assurance for multi-target single-isocenter SRS-A target-specific approach. Med Phys. 2024; 51(9): 6469-6474.

[32] Mukwada G, Hirst A, Rowshanfarzad P, Ebert MA. Development of a 3D printed phantom for commissioning and quality assurance of multiple brain targets stereotactic radiosurgery. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024; 47(2): 455-463.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Precision Radiation Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Shandong Cancer Hospital & Institute.