Clinical Associate Professor, Radiation Oncology - Radiation Physics
With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4months before (n=297) and 4months after (n=285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from -14% (BS Iris) to -52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from -11% (BS Iris) to -22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were -4.6%, -22.2%, and -17.8% for treatment time reduction, -1.1%, -22.0%, and -28.4% for beam reduction and -3.2%, -21.8%, and -28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer.
View details for DOI 10.1002/acm2.12851
View details for PubMedID 32212374
Introduction The treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is one of the most demanding of all radiosurgery procedures, requiring accurate delivery and sharp dose fall off. ZAP-X®, a new, innovative frameless radiosurgical device, maybe an attractive platform for the treatment of TN and other functional brain disorders. Here, we compared the dosimetry of ZAP-X plans for a single patient to that generated by a well-established dedicated radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife. Methods Radiosurgery plans that delineated the cranial nerve from a single patient's fused computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MR) data set were planned on both the ZAP-X and CyberKnife, with the latter serving as a validated benchmark. The same target and treatment planning constraints were applied. Plans were evaluated by a physician with experience treating TN and a medical physicist. The ZAP-X treatment plan used two isocenters delivered through 4-mm collimators based on a non-isocentric plan that delivered 29,441 MU through 81 beams. The CyberKnife plans used a 5-mm collimator for a non-isocentric plan that delivered 17,880 MU through 88 beams. Results Based on visual inspection, the isodose volumes covered by ZAP-X and CyberKnife were similar at the prescription isodose (70% and 80%, respectively, with a maximum dose (Dmax) of 7500 cGy. The conformality index was better for the CyberKnife as compared to ZAP-X. However, the irradiated volumes were smaller at the 50%, 20%, and 10% isodoses for ZAP-X (0.12 cc, 0.57 cc, and 1.69 for ZAP-X; 0.18 cc, 0.91 cc, and 3.41 cc for CyberKnife). In particular, the 20% and 10% isodose volumes were much smaller for ZAP-X, especially on the axial and sagittal planes. Conclusions ZAP-X treatment planning for TN compares favorably with equivalent planning on CyberKnife. The brain volumes containing the 20% and 10% isodoses are smaller using ZAP-X, thus relatively sparing critical structures close to the target, including the Gasserian ganglion and brainstem. This feature could be of clinical relevance by potentially reducing treatment-related complications.
View details for DOI 10.7759/cureus.8324
View details for PubMedID 32617203
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7325335
There are very few reported cases of stereotactic radiosurgery delivered in children under 3 years of age. We report an 18 month old boy with metastatic recurrence of undifferentiated round cell sarcoma to the brain which was treated with chemotherapy, resection, and robotic frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Frameless SRS was delivered without technical difficulties, acute adverse events, or clinical sequelae 1.5 months post-radiation. Longer term follow-up will be needed to evaluate local tumor control and effects on neurocognitive development, endocrine function, and growth. This report adds to the literature of the few reported cases of successfully attempted SRS in very young children.
View details for DOI 10.1080/00207454.2019.1655015
View details for PubMedID 31401906
The task group (TG) for quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery was formed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance (QA) Subcommittee. The task group (TG-135) had three main charges: (1) To make recommendations on a code of practice for Robotic Radiosurgery QA; (2) To make recommendations on quality assurance and dosimetric verification techniques, especially in regard to real-time respiratory motion tracking software; (3) To make recommendations on issues which require further research and development. This report provides a general functional overview of the only clinically implemented robotic radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife. This report includes sections on device components and their individual component QA recommendations, followed by a section on the QA requirements for integrated systems. Examples of checklists for daily, monthly, annual, and upgrade QA are given as guidance for medical physicists. Areas in which QA procedures are still under development are discussed.
View details for DOI 10.1118/1.3579139
View details for Web of Science ID 000291405200011
View details for PubMedID 21815366
View details for PubMedID 28524974