Dosimetric Comparison of M6 CyberKnife Plans Optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A Treatment Planning Systems

Overview

Journal J Appl Clin Med Phys

Specialties Biophysics
General Medicine

Date 2024 Dec 19

PMID 39698880

Authors

Maude Gondre

Veronique Vallet

Jean Bourhis

Francois Bochud

Raphael Moeckli

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment planning for CyberKnife (CK) (Accuray, USA) can be performed with Precision (Accuray, USA) or RayStation (RS) (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) treatment planning systems (TPS). RaySearch recently released a new version of the CK module in RS 12A. The objective of the study was to compare plan quality between RS 12A and Precision.

Methods: Fifty nine plans were optimized with both TPS and compared; 39 were for brain metastases and 20 were for vertebral metastases. To avoid bias in plan comparison, Precision plans were recomputed in RS with the dose algorithm and beam model of RS, and then compared to RS plans. The comparison was divided into 3 parts in order to reflect the potential of RS and the differences with Precision, in terms of technical aspects of delivery efficiency and dose distribution. We compared the dose to the target and to the organs at risk (OAR), the conformity index (CI), the gradient, as well as the number of monitor units (MU), and the number of beams and nodes. Finally, a global plan quality index (PQI) was calculated.

Results: RS plans showed an equivalent target coverage for brain metastases but worse for vertebrae. OAR sparing was improved in RS but with a lower CI compared to Precision. Using an appropriate planning methodology in RS, plans with comparable quality to Precision could be obtained, but at the cost of a longer optimization time. The PQI obtained with RS was better than Precision, except for some brain cases.

Conclusion: RS is an adequate alternative for CK planning as it is possible to obtain plan quality comparable to Precision. However, the optimization time is longer compared to Precision and more attention must be paid to the choice of the initial conditions in terms of the number of beams and nodes.

Citing Articles

Dosimetric comparison of M6 CyberKnife plans optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A treatment planning systems.

Gondre M, Vallet V, Bourhis J, Bochud F, Moeckli R J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 26(3):e14585.

PMID: 39698880 PMC: 11905244. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14585.

References

Ahnesjo A . Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 1989; 16(4):577-92. DOI: 10.1118/1.596360. View

Kry S, Feygelman V, Balter P, Knoos T, Ma C, Snyder M . AAPM Task Group 329: Reference dose specification for dose calculations: Dose-to-water or dose-to-muscle?. Med Phys. 2019; 47(3):e52-e64. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13995. View

Niemierko A . Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997; 24(1):103-10. DOI: 10.1118/1.598063. View

Bhan K, Spanier J . Condensed history Monte Carlo methods for photon transport problems. J Comput Phys. 2008; 225(2):1673-1694. PMC: 2424239. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.012. View

Paddick I, Lippitz B . A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006; 105 Suppl:194-201. DOI: 10.3171/sup.2006.105.7.194. View

Zeverino M, Marguet M, Zulliger C, Durham A, Jumeau R, Herrera F . Novel inverse planning optimization algorithm for robotic radiosurgery: First clinical implementation and dosimetric evaluation. Phys Med. 2019; 64:230-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.020. View

Calusi S, Doro R, Di Cataldo V, Cipressi S, Francolini G, Bonucci I . Performance assessment of a new optimization system for robotic SBRT MLC-based plans. Phys Med. 2020; 71:31-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.009. View

Gondre M, Conrad M, Vallet V, Bourhis J, Bochud F, Moeckli R . Commissioning and validation of RayStation treatment planning system for CyberKnife M6. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(8):e13732. PMC: 9359029. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13732. View

Bisello S, Cilla S, Benini A, Cardano R, Nguyen N, Deodato F . Dose-Volume Constraints fOr oRganS At risk In Radiotherapy (CORSAIR): An "All-in-One" Multicenter-Multidisciplinary Practical Summary. Curr Oncol. 2022; 29(10):7021-7050. PMC: 9600677. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29100552. View

10.

Murali V, Gopalakrishna Kurup P, Bhuvaneswari N, Sudahar H, Muthukumaran M . Monte Carlo and ray tracing algorithms in the cyberknife treatment planning for lung tumours- comparison and validation. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2018; 2(2):85-98. PMC: 5658892. View

11.

Galpayage Dona K, Shang C, Leventouri T . Dosimetric Comparison of Treatment Plans Computed With Finite Size Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms Using the InCise™ Multileaf Collimator-Equipped Cyberknife System. J Med Phys. 2020; 45(1):7-15. PMC: 7185708. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_64_19. View

12.

Leung L, Kan M, Cheng A, Wong W, Yau C . A new dose-volume-based Plan Quality Index for IMRT plan comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2007; 85(3):407-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.10.018. View

13.

Gondre M, Vallet V, Bourhis J, Bochud F, Moeckli R . Dosimetric comparison of M6 CyberKnife plans optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A treatment planning systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 26(3):e14585. PMC: 11905244. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14585. View

14.

Gondre M, Marsolat F, Bourhis J, Bochud F, Moeckli R . Validation of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for CyberKnife multileaf collimator. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021; 23(2):e13481. PMC: 8833269. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13481. View