A dosimetric comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques for lung cancer: robotic versus conventional linac-based systems.

The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric characteristics of robotic and conventional linac-based SBRT techniques for lung cancer, and to provide planning guidance for each modality. Eight patients who received linac-based SBRT were retrospectively included in this study. A dose of 60 Gy given in three fractions was prescribed to each target. The Synchrony Respiratory Tracking System and a 4D dose calculation methodology were used for CyberKnife and linac-based SBRT, respectively, to minimize respiratory impact on dose calculation. Identical image and contour sets were used for both modalities. While both modalities can provide satisfactory target dose coverage, the dose to GTV was more heterogeneous for CyberKnife than for linac planning/delivery in all cases. The dose to 1000 cc lung was well below institutional constraints for both modalities. In the high dose region, the lung dose depended on tumor size, and was similar between both modalities. In the low dose region, however, the quality of CyberKnife plans was dependent on tumor location. With anteriorly-located tumors, the CyberKnife may deliver less dose to normal lung than linac techniques. Conversely, for posteriorly-located tumors, CyberKnife delivery may result in higher doses to normal lung. In all cases studied, more monitor units were required for CyberKnife delivery for given prescription. Both conventional linacs and CyberKnife provide acceptable target dose coverage while sparing normal tissues. The results of this study provide a general guideline for patient and treatment modality selection based on dosimetric, tumor and normal tissue sparing considerations.

Setup errors in patients treated with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy for gynecological malignancies.

Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy (IM-WPRT) has decreased the incidence of gastrointestinal complications by reducing the volume of normal tissue irradiated in gynecologic patients. However, IM-WPRT plans result in steep dose gradients around the target volume, and thus accurate patient setup is essential. To quantify the accuracy of our patient positioning, we examined the weekly portal films of 46 women treated with IM-WPRT at our institution. All patients were positioned using a customized immobilization device that was indexed to the treatment table. Setup errors were evaluated by comparing portal images to simulation images using an algorithm that registers user-defined open curve segments drawn on both sets of film. The setup errors, which were separated into systematic and random components, ranged from 1.9 to 3.7 mm for the translations and 1.3 degrees to 4.4 degrees for the 2 in-plane translations. The systematic errors were all less than the respective random errors, with the largest error in the anterior/posterior direction. In addition, there was no correlation between the magnitude of these errors and patient-specific factors (age, weight, height). In the future, we will investigate the effect of these setup errors on the delivered dose distribution.