Practical considerations of linear accelerator-based frameless extracranial radiosurgery for treatment of occipital neuralgia for nonsurgical candidates.

Occipital neuralgia generally responds to medical or invasive procedures. Repeated invasive procedures generate increasing complications and are often contraindicated. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has not been reported as a treatment option largely due to the extracranial nature of the target as opposed to the similar, more established trigeminal neuralgia. A dedicated phantom study was conducted to determine the optimum imaging studies, fusion matrices, and treatment planning parameters to target the C2 dorsal root ganglion which forms the occipital nerve. The conditions created from the phantom were applied to a patient with medically and surgically refractory occipital neuralgia. A dose of 80 Gy in one fraction was prescribed to the C2 occipital dorsal root ganglion. The phantom study resulted in a treatment achieved with an average translational magnitude of correction of 1.35 mm with an acceptable tolerance of 0.5 mm and an average rotational magnitude of correction of 0.4° with an acceptable tolerance of 1.0°. For the patient, the spinal cord was 12.0 mm at its closest distance to the isocenter and received a maximum dose of 3.36 Gy, a dose to 0.35 cc of 1.84 Gy, and a dose to 1.2 cc of 0.79 Gy. The brain maximum dose was 2.20 Gy. Treatment time was 59 min for 18, 323 MUs. Imaging was performed prior to each arc delivery resulting in 21 imaging sessions. The average deviation magnitude requiring a positional or rotational correction was 0.96 ± 0.25 mm, 0.8 ± 0.41°, whereas the average deviation magnitude deemed within tolerance was 0.41 ± 0.12 mm, 0.57 ± 0.28°. Dedicated quality assurance of the treatment planning and delivery is necessary for safe and accurate SRS to the cervical spine dorsal root ganglion. With additional prospective study, linear accelerator-based frameless radiosurgery can provide an accurate, noninvasive alternative for treating occipital neuralgia where an invasive procedure is contraindicated.

Quantifying isocenter measurements to establish clinically meaningful thresholds.

A dataset range of isocenter congruency verification tests have been examined from a statistical perspective for the purpose of establishing tolerance levels that are meaningful, based on the fundamental limitation of linear accelerator isocentricity and the demands of a high-precision stereotactic radiosurgery program. Using a laser-defined isocenter, a total of 149 individual isocenter congruency tests were examined with recorded values for ideal spatial corrections to the isocenter test tool. These spatial corrections were determined from radiation exposures recorded on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) at various gantry, collimator, and treatment couch combinations. The limitations of establishing an ideal isocenter were quantified from each variable which contributed to uncertainty in isocenter definition. Individual contributors to uncertainty, specifically, daily positioning setup errors, gantry sag, multileaf collimator (MLC) offset, and couch walkout, were isolated from isocenter congruency measurements to determine a clinically meaningful isocenter measurement. Variations in positioning of the test tool constituted, on average, 0.38 mm magnitude of correction. Gantry sag and MLC offset contributed 0.4 and 0.16 mm, respectively. Couch walkout had an average degrading effect to isocenter of 0.72 mm. Considering the magnitude of uncertainty contributed by each uncertainty variable and the nature of their combination, an appropriate schedule action and immediate action level were determined for use in analyzing daily isocenter congruency test results in a stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program. The recommendations of this study for this linear accelerator include a schedule action level of 1.25 mm and an immediate action level of 1.50mm, requiring prompt correction response from clinical medical physicists before SRS or stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) is administered. These absolute values were derived from considering relative data from a specific linear accelerator and, therefore, represent a means by which a numerical quantity can be used as a test threshold with relative specificity to a particular linear accelerator.

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ-at-risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested-survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality improvement (CQI) committee recognized that, due to growth from one to three centers, significant variability existed within plan parameters specific to patients' treatment. A multidiscipline, multiclinical site consortium was established to create a guideline for standard naming. Input was gathered using anonymous, electronic surveys from physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, chief therapists, and nurse managers. Surveys consisted of several primary areas of interest: anatomical sites, course naming, treatment plan naming, and treatment field naming. Additional concepts included capitalization, specification of laterality, course naming in the event of multiple sites being treated within the same course of treatment, primary versus boost planning, the use of bolus, revisions for plans, image-guidance field naming, forbidden characters, and standard units for commonly used physical quantities in radiation oncology practice. Guidelines for standard treatment naming were developed that could be readily adopted. This multidisciplinary study provides a clear, straightforward, and easily implemented protocol for the radiotherapy treatment process. Standard nomenclature facilitates the safe means of communication between team members in radiation oncology. The guidelines presented in this work serve as a model for radiation oncology clinics to standardize their practices.