AAPM task group report 135.B: Quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery.
image guided SBRT
image guided SRS
robotic radio‐surgery
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2024
25 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
31
07
2024
received:
26
09
2023
accepted:
26
09
2024
medline:
25
10
2024
pubmed:
25
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
AAPM Task Group Report 135.B covers new technology components that have been added to an established radiosurgery platform and updates the components that were not well covered in the previous report. Considering the current state of the platform, this task group (TG) is a combination of a foundational task group to establish the basis for new processes/technology and an educational task group updating guidelines on the established components of the platform. Because the technology discussed in this document has a relatively small user base compared to C-arm isocentric linacs, the authors chose to emphasize the educational components to assist medical physicists who are new to the technology and have not had the opportunity to receive in-depth vendor training at the time of reading this report. The TG has developed codes of practice, introduced QA, and developed guidelines which are generally expected to become enduring practice. This report makes prescriptive recommendations as there has not been enough longitudinal experience with some of the new technical components to develop a data-based risk analysis.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Dieterich S, Cavedon C, Chuang CF, et al. Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery [published online ahead of print 2011/08/06]. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):2914‐2936.
Echner GG, Kilby W, Lee M, et al. The design, physical properties and clinical utility of an iris collimator for robotic radiosurgery [published online ahead of print 2009/08/19]. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(18):5359‐5380.
Fürweger C, Prins P, Coskan H, Heijmen BJ. Characteristics and performance of the first commercial multileaf collimator for a robotic radiosurgery system. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2063‐2071.
Asmerom G, Bourne D, Chappelow J, et al. The design and physical characterization of a multileaf collimator for robotic radiosurgery. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2016;2(1):017003.
Benjamin P, Fahimian LW. Introduction to CyberKnife® Technology. In: Steven D. Chang AV, eds. CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2014:1‐12.
Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning [published online ahead of print 1998/11/04]. Med Phys. 1998;25(10):1773‐1829.
Smilowitz JB, Das IJ, Feygelman V, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5. a. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations — megavoltage photon and electron beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(5):14‐34.
Geurts MW, Jacqmin DJ, Jones LE, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.b: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations‐Megavoltage photon and electron beams [published online ahead of print 20220810]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(9):e13641.
Dosimetry Of Small Static Fields Used In External Beam Radiotherapy. International Atomic Energy Agency; 2017. IAEA report 483.
Das IJ, Francescon P, Moran JM, et al. Report of AAPM Task Group 155: megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non‐equilibrium conditions. Med Phys. 2021;40(10):e886‐e921 doi:10.1002/mp.15030
Physics Essential Guide. Accuray Inc.; 2017.
Baart VDM, Lenaerts E. Validation and use of the “Iris Quality Assurance Tool”. Paper presented at: SRS/SBRT RSS Scientific Meeting; 2013; Carlsbad, CA.
Jr TD. Evaluation of a prototype optical image‐based measurement tool for routine quality assurance of field size for the CyberKnifeTM IRIS collimation system. Paper presented at: SRS/SBRT RSS Scientific Meeting; 2012; Carlsbad, CA.
Nikolic M, Masterson‐McGary M, Toner S, et al. MO‐D‐105‐06: dose‐area product as a method for small field geometric QA. Med Phys. 2013;40(6):395‐395.
Heidorn S‐C, Kremer N, Fürweger C. A novel method for quality assurance of the cyberknife iris variable aperture collimator. Cureus. 2016;8(5):e618.
Wang AL L, Ho A. Implementation of the electronic portal imaging device for dailycyberknife quality assurance. Med Phys. 2018;45(6):e327. SU‐I‐GPD‐T‐380.
Ashraf MR, Gibson C, Skinner L, Gu X, Xing L, Wang L. An integrated 3D printed radioluminescent‐based phantom for quality assurance on a robotic‐arm linac. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68:115003. doi:10.1088/1361‐6560/acd162
Burton SHD, Huq MS. Dosimetric comparison between cone/Iris‐based and InCise MLC‐based CyberKnife plans for single and multiple brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(5):184‐199.
Kathriarachchi V, Shang C, Evans G, Leventouri T, Kalantzis G. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of CyberKnife M6 InCise multileaf collimator over IRIS variable collimator in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Med Phys. 2016;41(2):135‐143.
McGuinness CMGA, Lessard E, Nakamura JL, et al. Investigating the clinical advantages of a robotic linac equipped with a multileaf collimator in the treatment of brain and prostate cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(5):284‐295.
Bayouth JE, Wendt D, Morrill SM. MLC quality assurance techniques for IMRT applications [published online ahead of print 2003/05/30]. Med Phys. 2003;30(5):743‐750.
Arthur Boyer PD, Peter Biggs PD, James Galvin DS, et al. AAPM TG‐50: Basic Applications Of Multileaf Collimators. American Asociation of Physicists in Medicine; 2001.
Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators [published online ahead of print 2009/10/09]. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197‐4212.
Murphy MJ, Cox RS. The accuracy of dose localization for an image‐guided frameless radiosurgery system [published online ahead of print 1996/12/01]. Med Phys. 1996;23(12):2043‐2049.
Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101 [published online ahead of print 2010/10/01]. Med Phys. 2010;37(8):4078‐4101.
Solberg TD, Balter JM, Benedict SH, et al. Quality and safety considerations in stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy: executive summary [published online ahead of print 2012/01/01]. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2(1):2‐9.
Halvorsen PH, Cirino E, Das IJ, et al. AAPM‐RSS medical physics practice guideline 9.a. for SRS‐SBRT [published online ahead of print 2017/08/09]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(5):10‐21.
Ford EC, Terezakis S, Souranis A, Harris K, Gay H, Mutic S. Quality control quantification (QCQ): a tool to measure the value of quality control checks in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2012;84(3):e263‐e269.
Bojechko C, Phillps M, Kalet A, Ford EC. A quantification of the effectiveness of EPID dosimetry and software‐based plan verification systems in detecting incidents in radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2015;42(9):5363‐5369.
Kry SF, Molineu A, Kerns JR, et al. Institutional patient‐specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol* Biol* Phys. 2014;90(5):1195‐1201.
Kry SF, Glenn MC, Peterson CB, et al. Independent recalculation outperforms traditional measurement‐based IMRT QA methods in detecting unacceptable plans. Med Phys. 2019;46(8):3700‐3708.
Milder MTWAM, Söhn M, Hoogeman MS. Commissioning and clinical implementation of the first commercial independent Monte Carlo 3D dose calculation to replace CyberKnife M6™ patient‐specific QA measurements. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(11):304‐311. doi:10.1002/acm2.13046
Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218 [published online ahead of print 2018/02/15]. Med Phys. 2018;45(4):e53‐e83.
Blanck O, Masi L, Damme MC, et al. Film‐based delivery quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery: commissioning and validation. Eur J Med Phys. 2015;31(5):476‐483.
Lin MH, Veltchev I, Koren S, Ma C, Li J. Robotic radiosurgery system patient‐specific QA for extracranial treatments using the planar ion chamber array and the cylindrical diode array. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(4):290‐305.
Blanck O, Masi L, Chan MK, et al. High resolution ion chamber array delivery quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery: commissioning and validation. Phys Med. 2016;32(6):838‐846.
Rose MS, Tirpak L, Van Casteren K, et al. Multi‐institution validation of a new high spatial resolution diode array for SRS and SBRT plan pretreatment quality assurance [published online ahead of print 2020/03/28]. Med Phys. 2020;47(7):3153‐3164.
Padelli FAD, Fariselli L, De Martin E. IBA myQA SRS detector for CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery quality assurance. Appl Sci. 2022;12(15):7791.
Ashraf MR, Krimmer J, Zalavri L, Gu X, Wang L, Chuang CF. Angular correction methodology and characterization of a high‐resolution CMOS array for patient specific quality assurance on a robotic arm linac [published online ahead of print 20230802]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24(11):e14110.
Smith K, Balter P, Duhon J, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: linear accelerator performance tests [published online ahead of print 2017/05/27]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):23‐39.
Krauss RF, Balik S, Cirino ET, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.b: linear accelerator performance tests [published online ahead of print 20231004]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24(11):e14160.
Schweikard A, Shiomi H, Adler J. Respiration tracking in radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2004;31(10):2738‐2741.
Dieterich S. Dynamic tracking of moving tumors in stereotactic radiosurgery. In: Mould RF, ed. Robotic Radiosurgery. The CyberKnife Society Press; 2005:51‐63.
Dieterich S, Cleary K, D'Souza W, Murphy M, Wong KH, Keall P. Locating and targeting moving tumors with radiation beams [published online ahead of print 2009/01/30]. Med Phys. 2008;35(12):5684‐5694.
Dieterich S, Gibbs IC. The cyberknife in clinical use: current roles, future expectations [published online ahead of print 2011/06/01]. Front Radiat Ther Oncol. 2011;43:181‐194.
Fürweger C, Drexler C, Muacevic A, Wowra B, Klerck EC, Hoogeman MS. CyberKnife robotic spinal radiosurgery in prone position: dosimetric advantage due to posterior radiation access?. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(4):11‐21.
CyberKnife Treatment Delivery System, Version 11.1.X. Accuray Inc.; 2017.
Hoogeman M, Prevost JB, Nuyttens J, Poll J, Levendag P, Heijmen B. Clinical accuracy of the respiratory tumor tracking system of the cyberknife: assessment by analysis of log files [published online ahead of print 2009/04/14]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(1):297‐303.
Antypas C, Pantelis E. Performance evaluation of a CyberKnife G4 image‐guided robotic stereotactic radiosurgery system [published online ahead of print 2008/08/13]. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(17):4697‐4718.
Seppenwoolde Y, Berbeco RI, Nishioka S, Shirato H, Heijmen B. Accuracy of tumor motion compensation algorithm from a robotic respiratory tracking system: a simulation study [published online ahead of print 2007/09/08]. Med Phys. 2007;34(7):2774‐2784.
Pepin EW, Wu H, Zhang Y, Lord B. Correlation and prediction uncertainties in the cyberknife synchrony respiratory tracking system [published online ahead of print 2011/08/24]. Med Phys. 2011;38(7):4036‐4044.
Akino Y, Shiomi H, Sumida I, et al. Impacts of respiratory phase shifts on motion‐tracking accuracy of the CyberKnife Synchrony Respiratory Tracking System [published online ahead of print 2019/04/04]. Med Phys. 2019;46(9):3757‐3766.
Marants R, Vandervoort E, Cygler JE. Evaluation of the 4D RADPOS dosimetry system for dose and position quality assurance of CyberKnife [published online ahead of print 2018/07/26]. Med Phys. 2018;45(9):4030‐4044. doi:10.1002/mp.13102
Lu XQ, Shanmugham LN, Mahadevan A, et al. Organ deformation and dose coverage in robotic respiratory‐tracking radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1):281‐289.
Murphy MJ. Fiducial‐based targeting accuracy for external‐beam radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2002;29(3):334‐344.
Kothary N, Dieterich S, Louie JD, Koong AC, Hofmann LV, Sze DY. A primer on image‐guided radiation therapy for the interventional radiologist [published online ahead of print 2009/06/02]. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(7):859‐862.
Kothary N, Dieterich S, Louie JD, Chang DT, Hofmann LV, Sze DY. Percutaneous implantation of fiducial markers for imaging‐guided radiation therapy [published online ahead of print 2009/03/24]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(4):1090‐1096.
van der Voort van Zyp NC, Hoogeman MS, van de Water S, et al. Stability of markers used for real‐time tumor tracking after percutaneous intrapulmonary placement [published online ahead of print 2011/02/26]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):e75‐81.
Collins BT, Vahdat S, Erickson K, et al. Radical cyberknife radiosurgery with tumor tracking: an effective treatment for inoperable small peripheral stage I non‐small cell lung cancer [published online ahead of print 2009/01/20]. J Hematol Oncol. 2009;2:1.
van der Voort van Zyp NC, Prevost JB, Hoogeman MS, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy with real‐time tumor tracking for non‐small cell lung cancer: clinical outcome [published online ahead of print 2009/03/20]. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91(3):296‐300.
Brown WT, Wu X, Fowler JF, et al. Fowler. South Med J. 2008;101:376‐382.
Shirato H, Seppenwoolde Y, Kitamura K, Onimura R, Shimizu S. Intrafractional tumor motion: lung and liver. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004;14(1):10‐18.
Keall PJ, Mageras GS, Balter JM, et al. The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76 [published online ahead of print 2006/11/09]. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3874‐3900.
Guckenberger M, Meyer J, Wilbert J, et al. Cone‐beam CT based image‐guidance for extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy of intrapulmonary tumors. Acta Oncol. 2006;45(7):897‐906.
CS JJ, Lynch B, Wang B, Dunlap NE. Quantification of planning target volume margin when using a robotic radiosurgery system to treat lung tumors with spine tracking. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(4):e337‐e343.
Guo Y, Zhuang H, Zhao L, Yuan Z, Wang P. Influence of different image‐guided tracking methods upon the local efficacy of CyberKnife treatment in lung tumors. Thorac Cancer. 2015;6(3):255‐259.
Deng J, Ma CM, Hai J, Nath R. Commissioning 6 MV photon beams of a stereotactic radiosurgery system for Monte Carlo treatment planning [published online ahead of print 2004/01/10]. Med Phys. 2003;30(12):3124‐3134.
Deng J, Guerrero T, Ma CM, Nath R. Modelling 6 MV photon beams of a stereotactic radiosurgery system for Monte Carlo treatment planning [published online ahead of print 2004/05/22]. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(9):1689‐1704.
van der Voort van Zyp NC, Hoogeman MS, van de Water S, et al. Clinical introduction of Monte Carlo treatment planning: a different prescription dose for non‐small cell lung cancer according to tumor location and size [published online ahead of print 2010/05/01]. Radiother Oncol. 2010;96(1):55‐60.
Wilcox EE, Daskalov GM, Lincoln H. Stereotactic radiosurgery‐radiotherapy: should Monte Carlo treatment planning be used for all sites?. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2011;1(1):251‐260.
Wilcox EE, Daskalov GM, Lincoln H, Shumway RC, Kaplan BM, Colasanto JM. Comparison of planned dose distributions calculated by Monte Carlo and Ray‐Trace algorithms for the treatment of lung tumors with cyberknife: a preliminary study in 33 patients [published online ahead of print 2009/12/17]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(1):277‐284.
Sharma S, Ott J, Williams J, Dickow D. Dose calculation accuracy of the Monte Carlo algorithm for CyberKnife compared with other commercially available dose calculation algorithms [published online ahead of print 2010/12/15]. Med Dosim. 2011;36(4):347‐350.
Wilcox EE, Daskalov GM. Accuracy of dose measurements and calculations within and beyond heterogeneous tissues for 6 MV photon fields smaller than 4 cm produced by Cyberknife [published online ahead of print 2008/07/25]. Med Phys. 2008;35(6):2259‐2266.
Heidorn SC, Kilby W, Furweger C. Novel Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for robotic radiosurgery with multi leaf collimator: dosimetric evaluation [published online ahead of print 2018/11/26]. Phys Med. 2018;55:25‐32.
Mackeprang PH, Vuong D, Volken W, et al. Benchmarking Monte‐Carlo dose calculation for MLC CyberKnife treatments. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14(1):172.
Papanikolaou N, Battista J, Boyer AL, et al. AAPM Report No. 85 : Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections For Megavoltage Photon Beams. American Asociation of Physicists in Medicine by Medical Physics; 2004.
Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, et al. Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo‐based photon and electron external beam treatment planning [published online ahead of print 2008/01/17]. Med Phys. 2007;34(12):4818‐4853.
Braunstein SE, Dionisio SA, Lometti MW, et al. Evaluation of Ray Tracing and Monte Carlo algorithms in dose calculation and clinical outcomes for robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy of lung cancers. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2014;3:67‐79.
Wu VW, Tam KW, Tong SM. Evaluation of the influence of tumor location and size on the difference of dose calculation between Ray Tracing algorithm and Fast Monte Carlo algorithm in stereotactic body radiotherapy of non‐small cell lung cancer using CyberKnife [published online ahead of print 2013/09/17]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(5):68‐78.
Latifi K, Oliver J, Baker R, et al. Study of 201 non‐small cell lung cancer patients given stereotactic ablative radiation therapy shows local control dependence on dose calculation algorithm [published online ahead of print 2014/02/18]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(5):1108‐1113.
Liu MB, Eclov NC, Trakul N, et al. Clinical impact of dose overestimation by effective path length calculation in stereotactic ablative radiation therapy of lung tumors. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013;3(4):294‐300.
Okoye CC, Patel RB, Hasan S, et al. Comparison of ray tracing and monte carlo calculation algorithms for thoracic spine lesions treated with cyberknife‐based stereotactic body radiation therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016;15(1):196‐202. doi:10.1177/1533034614568026
Wang EF L, Hayes S, Jin L, Ma C. Is Monte Carlo dose calculation method necessary for cyberknife brain treatment planning?. Med Phys. 2014;41(6):275.
Hawksworth SA, Qureshi MM, XIang H, et al. Ray‐Trace is inferior to Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for intracranial robotic radiosurgical treatment: a comparative dosimetry study. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2011;81(2):S859.
Ma C‐M, Li JS, Deng J, Fan J. Implementation of Monte Carlo dose calculation for cyberKnife treatment planning. J Phys Conf Ser. 2008;102. doi:10.1088/1742‐6596/102/1/012016
Keall PJ, Hoban PW. Superposition dose calculation incorporating Monte Carlo generated electron track kernels [published online ahead of print 1996/04/01]. Med Phys. 1996;23(4):479‐485.
Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW, et al. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non‐IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):504‐530.
Zhu TC, Stathakis S, Clark JR, et al. Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT. Med Phys. 2021;48(10):e808‐e829. doi:10.1002/mp.15069
Mutic S, Palta JR, Butker EK, et al. Quality assurance for computed‐tomography simulators and the computed‐tomography‐simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66 [published online ahead of print 2003/11/05]. Med Phys. 2003;30(10):2762‐2792.