[en] Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric indices of Cyberknife versus Linac for localised prostate cancer Methods: In this study, twenty patients were taken from Cyberknife Multiplan TPS v 4.6.0. All these patients underwent hypo fractionated boost treatment for localised prostate cancer in Cyberknife with the prescription dose of 18Gy in 3 fractions. For each patient VMAT stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v 5.0 using Elekta beam modulator MLC machine for 6MV photon beam. The plans quality were evaluated by comparing dosimetry indices such that D95, D90, D5 for target volume and V100, V80, V50, V30 for critical organs. The p values were calculated for target and OAR to ascertain the significant differences. Results: For each case, D95 of target coverage was achieved with 100% prescription dose with p value of 0.9998. The p value for D90, D5 and V100 for linac and Cyberknife plans was 0.9938, 0.9918 and 0.9838 respectively. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder doses were significantly less in Cyberknife compared to linac plans. For rectum, rectum-PTV and bladder at V100 the p value is 0.2402, 0.002, and 0.1615 respectively. Other indices V80, V50 and V30 were comparable in both plans. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that both linac and Cyberknife plans were shown adequate target coverage, while in Cyberknife the treatment time is longer and more MUs to be delivered. However, better conformity, lesser doses to the critical organs and dose gradient outside target for localised prostate treatment were achieved in Cyberknife plans due to multiple non coplanar beam arrangements

[en] The objective of this study is to evaluate the dose delivery accuracy of two beam matched linear accelerators and ensure their compliance through TPS dose verifications, 2D planar dose distribution and various beam matching parameters. TPS dose verifications and 2D planar dose distribution verifications among two LINACs were analysed along with beam matching parameters and the results were within acceptable criteria. Therefore, it is possible to interchange accelerators for ongoing irradiated patients without re-planning

[en] Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) refers to a type of abnormal heart rhythm that originates from ventricles and is difficult to manage or control with standard treatments, such as medications or repeated catheter ablation. Cardiac Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a novel technique with capability of delivering high doses of radiation to the target with sub-millimeter accuracy for the treatment of refractory VT patients. This has demonstrated decrease in arrhythmia episodes with favourable short term safety profile. This study discuss the feasibility of cardiac SBRT as a treatment option with our initial experience. Non-Invasive cardiac radioablation has proven to be a valid new therapeutic options for the refractory VT patients. In the modern treatment era, with the help of advanced imaging modalities, treatment modalities and sophisticated software along with high definition cardiac imaging, Cardiac SBRT can be considered as a front line alternative therapy for refractory VT patients

[en] Purpose: To validate the Monaco montecorlo beam model for a range of small field in the heterogeneous medium. Methods: A in-house phantom with three different medium of Foam, PMMA and derlin resembling the densities of lung, soft tissue, and bone was used for the study. The field sizes of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 48mm were studied for the validation of montecarlo algorithm using 0.01cc volume ionchamber and gafchromic films. The 6MV photon beam from Elekta Beam modulator was used with 100cm SAD setup. The outputs were measured at the depth of 5, 10 and 20mm in every second medium with 3cm buildup of first medium for the interface of lung-bone, lung-soft tissue, soft tissue-bone, bone-lung and soft tissue-lung. Similarly, the 2D dose analysis with gamma criteria of 2%2mm were done at the same depths using gafchromic film. For all the measurements 10.4×10.4cm were taken as reference to which the other field sizes were compared. Monaco TPSv.3.20 was used to calculate the dose distribution for all the simulated measurement setups. Results: The average maximum difference among the field sizes of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 48mm at the depth of 5mm in second medium with the interface of lung-bone, lung-soft tissue, soft tissue-bone, bone-lung and soft tissue-lung were observed as 1.29±0.14%, 0.49±0.16%, 0.87±0.23%, 0.92±0.11%, 1.01±0.19% respectively. The minimum and maximum variation of dose among different materials for the smallest field size of 8mm were observed as 0.23% and 1.67% respectively. The 2D analysis showed the average gamma passing of 98.9±0.5%. The calculated two-tailed P-value were showed insignificance with values of 0.562 and 0.452 for both ionchamber and film measurements. Conclusion: The accuracy of dose calculation for the small fields in Monaco Montecarlo TPS algorithm was validated in different inhomogeneous medium and found the results were well correlated with measurement data.

[en] Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate multiple brain metastases stereotactic treatment planning of Cyberknife versus linac using dose volume based indices. Methods: Fifteen multiple brain metastases patients were taken for this study from Cyberknife Multiplan TPSv4.6.0. All these patients underwent stereotactic treatment in Cyberknife. For each patient VMAT stereotactic treatment plan was generated in MONACO TPSv5.0 using Elekta beam modulator MLC and matched the delivered plan. A median dose of 8.5Gy(range 7–12Gy) per fraction was prescribed. Tumor volume was in the range of 0.06–4.33cc. Treatment plan quality was critically evaluated by comparing DVH indices such as D98, D95, CI, and HI for target volumes. Maximum point doses and volume doses were evaluated for critical organs. Results: For each case, target coverage of D98 was achieved with 100% prescription dose with SD of 0.29% and 0.41% in Linac and Cyberknife respectively. The average conformity index(CI) of 1.26±0.0796 SD for Cyberknife and 1.92±0.60SD for linac were observed. Better homogeneity Index (HI) of 1.17±0.09SD was observed in linac as compared to Cyberknife HI of 1.24±0.05SD.All the critical organ doses were well within tolerance limit in both linac and Cyberknife plans. There is no significant difference of maximum point doses for brainstem and optic chiasm. Treatment time and number of monitor units are more in Cyberknife compared to linac. The average volume receiving 12Gy in whole brain was 6% and 12% for Cyberknife and linac respectively. 1000cc of whole brain received 60% lesser dose in Linac compared to Cyberknife in all cases. Conclusion: The study shows that dosimetrically comparable plans are achievable Cyberknife and Linac. However, a better conformity, target coverage, lesser OAR dose is achieved with Cyberknife due to greater degrees of freedom with robotic gantry and smaller collimator for multiple targets

[en] Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the advent of COMPASS 3D dosimetry as a routine pre treatment verification tool with commercially available CMS Monaco and Oncentra Masterplan planning system. Methods: Twenty esophagus patients were selected for this study. All these patients underwent radical VMAT treatment in Elekta Linac and plans were generated in Monaco v5.0 with MonteCarlo(MC) dose calculation algorithm. COMPASS 3D dosimetry comprises an advanced dose calculation algorithm of collapsed cone convolution(CCC). To validate CCC algorithm in COMPASS, The DICOM RT Plans generated using Monaco MC algorithm were transferred to Oncentra Masterplan v4.3 TPS. Only final dose calculations were performed using CCC algorithm with out optimization in Masterplan planning system. It is proven that MC algorithm is an accurate algorithm and obvious that there will be a difference with MC and CCC algorithms. Hence CCC in COMPASS should be validated with other commercially available CCC algorithm. To use the CCC as pretreatment verification tool with reference to MC generated treatment plans, CCC in OMP and CCC in COMPASS were validated using dose volume based indices such as D98, D95 for target volumes and OAR doses. Results: The point doses for open beams were observed <1% with reference to Monaco MC algorithms. Comparisons of CCC(OMP) Vs CCC(COMPASS) showed a mean difference of 1.82%±1.12SD and 1.65%±0.67SD for D98 and D95 respectively for Target coverage. Maximum point dose of −2.15%±0.60SD difference was observed in target volume. The mean lung dose of −2.68%±1.67SD was noticed between OMP and COMPASS. The maximum point doses for spinal cord were −1.82%±0.287SD. Conclusion: In this study, the accuracy of CCC algorithm in COMPASS 3D dosimetry was validated by compared with CCC algorithm in OMP TPS. Dose calculation in COMPASS is feasible within < 2% in comparison with commercially available TPS algorithms

[en] Purpose: To evaluate the impact of dose calculation algorithm on the dose distribution of biologically optimized Volumatric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans for Esophgeal cancer. Methods: Eighteen retrospectively treated patients with carcinoma esophagus were studied. VMAT plans were optimized using biological objectives in Monaco (5.0) TPS for 6MV photon beam (Elekta Infinity). These plans were calculated for final dose using Monte Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) & Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithms from Monaco and Oncentra Masterplan TPS. A dose grid of 2mm was used for all algorithms and 1% per plan uncertainty maintained for MC calculation. MC based calculations were considered as the reference for CCC & PBC. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices (D95, D98, D50 etc) of Target (PTV) and critical structures were compared to study the impact of all three algorithms. Results: Beam models were consistent with measured data. The mean difference observed in reference with MC calculation for D98, D95, D50 & D2 of PTV were 0.37%, −0.21%, 1.51% & 1.18% respectively for CCC and 3.28%, 2.75%, 3.61% & 3.08% for PBC. Heart D25 mean difference was 4.94% & 11.21% for CCC and PBC respectively. Lung Dmean mean difference was 1.5% (CCC) and 4.1% (PBC). Spinal cord D2 mean difference was 2.35% (CCC) and 3.98% (PBC). Similar differences were observed for liver and kidneys. The overall mean difference found for target and critical structures was 0.71±1.52%, 2.71±3.10% for CCC and 3.18±1.55%, 6.61±5.1% for PBC respectively. Conclusion: We observed a significant overestimate of dose distribution by CCC and PBC as compared to MC. The dose prediction of CCC is closer (<3%) to MC than that of PBC. This can be attributed to poor performance of CCC and PBC in inhomogeneous regions around esophagus. CCC can be considered as an alternate in the absence of MC algorithm

[en] Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitatively 2D versus 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric modulated arc delivery using COMPASS with 2D array. Methods: Twenty-five patients CT images and RT structures of different sites like brain, head and neck, thorax, abdomen and spine were taken from Multiplan planning system for this study. All these patients underwent radical stereotactic treatment in Cyberknife. For each patient, linac based VMAT stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v 3.1 using Elekta Beam Modulator MLC. Dose prescription was in the range of 5-20Gy/fraction.TPS calculated VMAT plan delivery accuracy was quantitatively evaluated with COMPASS measured dose and calculated dose based on DVH metrics. In order to ascertain the potential of COMPASS 3D dosimetry for stereotactic plan delivery, 2D fluence verification was performed with MatriXX using Multicube. Results: For each site, D_{9 5} was achieved with 100% of prescription dose with maximum 0.05SD. Conformity index (CI) was observed closer to 1.15 in all cases. Maximum deviation of 2.62 % was observed for D_{9 5} when compared TPS versus COMPASS measured. Considerable deviations were observed in head and neck cases compare to other sites. The maximum mean and standard deviation for D_{9 5}, average target dose and average gamma were -0.78±1.72, -1.10±1.373 and 0.39±0.086 respectively. Numbers of pixels passing 2D fluence verification were observed as a mean of 99.36% ±0.455 SD with 3% dose difference and 3mm DTA. For critical organs in head and neck cases, significant dose differences were observed in 3D dosimetry while the target doses were matched well within limit in both 2D and 3D dosimetry. Conclusion: The quantitative evaluations of 2D versus 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric modulated plans showed the potential of highlighting the delivery errors. This study reveals that COMPASS 3D dosimetry is an effective tool for patient specific quality assurance compared to 2D fluence verification