Prostate SBRT using O‐Ring Halcyon Linac — Plan quality, delivery efficiency, and accuracy

Purpose The integration of auto‐segmentation and automated treatment planning methods on a fast‐rotating O‐ring linac may improve the time efficiency of online adaptive radiotherapy workflows. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning of prostate SBRT with focal boosting on the O‐ring linac could generate plans that are of similar quality as those obtained through manual planning on clinical C‐arm linacs. Methods For 20 men with prostate cancer, reference treatment plans were generated on a TrueBeam STx C‐arm linac with HD120 MLC and a TrueBeam C‐arm linac with Millennium 120 MLC using 6 MV flattened dual arc VMAT. Manual planning on the Halcyon fast‐rotating O‐ring linac was performed using 6 MV FFF dual arc VMAT (HA2‐DL10) and triple arc VMAT (HA3‐DL10) to investigate the performance of the dual‐layer MLC system. Automated planning was performed for triple arc VMAT on the Halcyon linac (ET3‐DL10) using the automated planning algorithms of Ethos Treatment Planning. The prescribed dose was 35 Gy to the prostate and 30 Gy to the seminal vesicles in five fractions. The iso‐toxic focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor nodule(s) was aimed to receive up to 50 Gy. Plan deliverability was verified using portal image dosimetry measurements. Results Compared to the C‐arm linacs, ET3‐DL10 shows increased seminal vesicles PTV coverage (D99%) and reduced high‐dose spillage to the bladder (V37Gy) and urethra (D0.035cc) but this came at the cost of increased high‐dose spillage to the rectum (V38Gy) and a higher intermediate dose spillage (D2cm). No statistically significant differences were found when benchmarking HA2‐DL10 and HA3‐DL10 with the C‐arm linacs. All plans passed the patient‐specific QA tolerance limit. Conclusions Automated planning of prostate SBRT with focal boosting on the fast‐rotating O‐ring linac is feasible and achieves similar plan quality as those obtained on clinical C‐arm linacs using manual planning.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 43 These patient‐ specific QA results are consistent with previous reports on the treatment delivery quality of VMAT on the fast‐rotating O‐ring linac. 44 , 46 , 47 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automated treatment planning of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy with focal boosting on a fast‐rotating O‐ring linac: Plan quality comparison with C‐arm linacs

Roover

Crijns

Dewit

et al. 2021

“…Portal dosimetry gamma pass rates were within tolerance levels for the 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm criterion for all Halcyon plans. Mean ArcCHECK gamma pass rates were in the range of literature reported values with Pokhrel et al reporting mean 98.6 ± 1.5% and 98.3 ± 2.0% for the 2%/2 mm criterion in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy for Halcyon VMAT and TrueBeam VMAT, respectively 22 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Comparison of treatment plans for hypofractionated high‐dose prostate cancer radiotherapy using the Varian Halcyon and the Elekta Synergy platforms

Tamihardja

Razinskas

Exner

et al. 2021

Purpose To compare radiotherapy plans between an O‐ring and a conventional C‐arm linac for hypofractionated high‐dose prostate radiotherapy in terms of plan quality, dose distribution, and quality assurance in a multi‐vendor environment. Methods Twenty prostate cancer treatment plans were irradiated on the O‐ring Varian Halcyon linac and were re‐optimized for the C‐arm Elekta Synergy Agility linac. Dose‐volume histogram metrics for target coverage and organ at risk dose, quality assurance, and monitor units were retrospectively compared. Patient‐specific quality assurance with ion chamber measurements, gamma index analysis, and portal dosimetry was performed using the Varian Portal Dosimetry system and the ArcCHECK® phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation). Prostate‐only radiotherapy was delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 20 fractions of 2.5/3.0 Gy each. Results For both linacs, target coverage was excellent and plan quality comparable. Homogeneity in PTVBoost was high for Synergy as well as Halcyon with a mean homogeneity index of 0.07 ± 0.01 and 0.05 ± 0.01, respectively. Mean dose for the organs at risk rectum and bladder differed not significantly between the linacs but were higher for the femoral heads and penile bulb for Halcyon. Quality assurance showed no significant differences in terms of ArcCHECK gamma pass rates. Median pass rate for 3%/2 mm was 99.3% (96.7 to 99.8%) for Synergy and 99.8% (95.6 to 100%) for Halcyon. Agreement between calculated and measured dose was high with a median deviation of −0.6% (−1.7 to 0.8%) for Synergy and 0.2% (−0.6 to 2.3%) for Halcyon. Monitor units were higher for the Halcyon by approximately 20% (p < 0.001). Conclusion Hypofractionated high‐dose prostate cancer SIB VMAT on the Halcyon system is feasible with comparable plan quality in reference to a standard C‐arm Elekta Synergy linac.

Feasibility of using ring‐mounted Halcyon Linac for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Pokhrel

Webster

Mallory

et al. 2022

Self Cite

To demonstrate the plan quality and delivery efficiency of volumetricmodulated arc therapy (VMAT) with the Halcyon Linac ring delivery system (RDS) in the treatment of single-isocenter/two-lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Materials/methods: Sixteen previously treated non-coplanar VMAT singleisocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT plans delivered with SBRT-dedicated C-arm TrueBeam Linac were selected. Prescribed dose was 50 Gy to each lesion over five fractions with treatment delivery every other day and AcurosXB algorithm as the final dose calculation algorithm.TrueBeam single-isocenter plans were reoptimized for Halcyon Linac with coplanar geometry. Both TrueBeam and Halcyon plans were normalized for identical combined target coverage and evaluated. Conformity indices (CIs), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), gradient distance (GD), and D 2cm were compared. The normal lung V5Gy, V10Gy, V20Gy, mean lung dose (MLD), and dose to organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated. Treatment delivery parameters, including beam-on time, were recorded. Results: Halcyon plans were statistically similar to clinically delivered True-Beam plans. No statistical differences in target conformity, dose heterogeneity, or intermediate-dose spillage were observed (all, p > 0.05). Halcyon plans, on average,demonstrated statistically insignificant reduced maximum dose to most adjacent OAR and normal lung. However, Halcyon yielded statistically significant lower maximal dose to the ribs (p = 0.041) and heart (p = 0.026), dose to 1 cc of ribs (p = 0.035) and dose to 5 cc of esophagus (p = 0.043). Plan complexity slightly increased as seen in the average increase of total monitor units, modulation factor, and beam-on time by 480, 0.48, and 2.78 min, respectively. However, the estimated overall treatment time was reduced by 2.22 min,on average.Mean dose delivery accuracy of clinical TrueBeam plans and the corresponding Halcyon plans was 98.9 ± 0.85% (range: 98.1%-100%) and 98.45 ± 0.99% (range: 97.9%-100%), respectively, demonstrating similar treatment delivery accuracy. Conclusion: SBRT treatment of synchronous lung lesions via single-isocenter VMAT on Halcyon RDS is feasible and dosimetrically equivalent to clinically delivered TrueBeam plans. Halcyon provides excellent plan quality and shorter overall treatment time that may improve patient compliance, reduce intrafraction movement, improve clinic efficiency, and potentially offering lung SBRT treatments for underserved patients on a Halcyon only clinic.