PurposeWe calculated setup margins for whole breast radiotherapy during voluntary deep‐inspiration breath‐hold (vDIBH) using real‐time surface imaging (SI).Methods and MaterialsPatients (n = 58) with a 27‐to‐31 split between right‐ and left‐sided cancers were analyzed. Treatment beams were gated using AlignRT by registering the whole breast region‐of‐interest to the surface generated from the simulation CT scan. AlignRT recorded (three‐dimensional) 3D displacements and the beam‐on‐state every 0.3 s. Means and standard deviations of the displacements during vDIBH for each fraction were used to calculate setup margins. Intra‐DIBH stability and the intrafraction reproducibility were estimated from the medians of the 5th to 95th percentile range of the translations in each breath‐hold and fraction, respectively.ResultsA total of 7269 breath‐holds were detected over 1305 fractions in which a median dose of 200 cGy was delivered. Each fraction was monitored for 5.95 ± 2.44 min. Calculated setup margins were 4.8 mm (A/P), 4.9 mm (S/I), and 6.4 mm (L/R). The intra‐DIBH stability and the intrafraction reproducibility were ≤0.7 mm and ≤2.2 mm, respectively. The isotropic margin according to SI (9.2 mm) was comparable to other institutions’ calculations that relied on x‐ray imaging and/or spirometry for patients with left‐sided cancer (9.8–11.0 mm). Likewise, intra‐DIBH variability and intrafraction reproducibility of breast surface measured with SI agreed with spirometry‐based positioning to within 1.2 and 0.36 mm, respectively.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that intra‐DIBH variability, intrafraction reproducibility, and setup margins are similar to those reported by peer studies who utilized spirometry‐based positioning.

Introduction: Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves favorable outcomes compared to conventional radiotherapy doses/fractionation. The spinal cord is the principal dose-limiting organ-at-risk (OAR), and safe treatment requires precise immobilization/localization. Therefore, image guidance is paramount to successful spine SBRT. Conventional X-ray imaging and alignment to surrogate bony anatomy may be inadequate, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) directly visualizes the dose-limiting cord. This work assessed the dosimetric capability of the ViewRay (ViewRay Inc. Oakwood Village, OH) magnetic resonance (MR) guided linac (MR-Linac) for spine SBRT. Methods: Eight spine SBRT patients without orthopedic hardware who were previously treated on a TrueBeam using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were re-planned using MR-Linac fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Phantom measurements using film, ionization chamber, and a commercial diode-array assessed feasibility. Plans included a variety of prescriptions (30-50 Gy in 3-10 fractions). Results: MR-Linac plans satisfied all clinical goals. Compared to VMAT plans, both entrance dose and heterogeneity increased (D max : 134±3% vs. 120±2%, p=0.0270), while conformality decreased (conformity index: 1.28±0.06 vs. 1.06±0.06, p=0.0005), and heterogeneity increased. However, while not statistically significant, MR-linac cord sparing improved (cord D max : 16.1±2.7Gy vs. 19.5±1.6Gy, p=0.2066; cord planning organ at risk volume (cord PRV) D max : 20.0±2.6Gy vs. 24.5±2.0Gy, p=0.0996). Delivery time increased but was acceptable (14.39±1.26min vs. 9.57±1.19min). Ionization chamber measurements agreed with planned dose to within 2.5%. Film and diode measurements demonstrated accurate/precise delivery of dose gradients between the target and the cord. Conclusion: Spine SBRT with the MR-Linac is feasible as verified via re-planning eight clinical cases followed by delivery verification in phantoms using film, diodes, and an ionization chamber. Real-time visualization of the dose-limiting cord during spine SBRT may enable cordbased gating, reduced margins, alternate dose schemas, and/or adaptive therapy. 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 5

The purpose of this work is to establish an automated approach for a multiple isocenter volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)-based TBI treatment planning approach. Five anonymized full-body CT imaging sets were used. A script was developed to automate and standardize the treatment planning process using the Varian Eclipse v15.6 Scripting API. The script generates two treatment plans: a headfirst VMAT-based plan for upper body coverage using four isocenters and a total of eight full arcs; and a feet-first AP/PA plan with three isocenters that covers the lower extremities of the patient. PTV was the entire body cropped 5 mm from the patient surface and extended 3 mm into the lungs and kidneys. Two plans were generated for each case: one to a total dose of 1200 cGy in 8 fractions and a second one to a total dose of 1320 cGy in 8 fractions. Plans were calculated using the AAA algorithm and 6 MV photon energy. One plan was created and delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom containing 12 OSLDs for in-vivo dose verification. For the plans prescribed to 1200 cGy total dose the following dosimetric results were achieved: median PTV V100% = 94.5%; median PTV D98% = 89.9%; median lungs Dmean = 763 cGy; median left kidney Dmean = 1058 cGy; and median right kidney Dmean = 1051 cGy. For the plans prescribed to 1320 cGy total dose the following dosimetric results were achieved: median PTV V100% = 95.0%; median PTV D98% = 88.7%; median lungs Dmean = 798 cGy; median left kidney Dmean = 1059 cGy; and median right kidney Dmean = 1064 cGy. Maximum dose objective was met for all cases. The dose deviation between the treatment planning dose and the dose measured by the OSLDs was within AE4%. In summary, we have demonstrated that scripting can produce high-quality plans based on predefined dose objectives and can decrease planning time by automatic target and optimization contours generation, plan creation, field and isocenter placement, and optimization objectives setup.

Purpose Routine quality assurance (QA) of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image‐guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)‐142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG‐142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA. Methods Cone‐beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer‐provided techniques. TG‐142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two‐way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student’s t‐test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented. Results All imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity. Conclusions This work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.

Purpose: Breast cancer radiotherapy delivered using voluntary deep inspiration breath‐hold (DIBH) requires reproducible breath holds, particularly when matching supraclavicular fields to tangential fields. We studied the impact of variation in DIBHs on CTV and OAR dose metrics by comparing the dose distribution computed on two DIBH CT scans taken at the time of simulation. Methods: Ten patients receiving 50Gy in 25 fractions to the left chestwall and regional lymph nodes were studied. Two simulation CT scans were taken during separate DIBHs along with a free‐breathing (FB) scan. The treatment was planned using one DIBH CT. The dose was recomputed on the other two scans using adaptive planning (Pinnacle 9.10) in which the scans are registered using a cross‐correlation algorithm. The chestwall, lymph nodes and OARs were contoured on the scans following the RTOG consensus guidelines. The overall translational and rotational variation between the DIBH scans was used to estimate positional variation between breath‐holds. Dose metrics between plans were compared using paired t‐tests (p < 0.05) and means and standard deviations were reported. Results: The registration parameters were sub‐millimeter and sub‐degree. Although DIBH significantly reduced mean heart dose by 2.4Gy compared to FB (p < 0.01), no significant changes in dose were observed for targets or OARs between the two DIBH scans. Nodal coverage as assessed by V90% was 90%±8% and 89%±8% for supraclavicular and 99%±2% and 97%±22% for IM nodes. Though a significant decrease (10.5%±12.4%) in lung volume in the second DIBH CT was observed, the lung V20Gy was unchanged (14±2% and 14±3%) between the two DIBH scans. Conclusion: While the lung volume often varied between DIBHs, the CTV and OAR dose metrics were largely unchanged. This indicates that manual DIBH has the potential to provide consistent dose delivery to the chestwall and regional nodes targets when using matched fields.