title: Investigating the clinical advantages of a robotic linac equipped with a multileaf collimator in the treatment of brain and prostate cancer patients.
abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a commercially avail-able CyberKnife system with a multileaf collimator (CK-MLC) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and standard fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) applications. Ten prostate and ten intracranial cases were planned for the CK-MLC. Half of these cases were compared with clinically approved SBRT plans generated for the CyberKnife with circular collimators, and the other half were compared with clinically approved standard fractionated IMRT plans generated for conventional linacs. The plans were compared on target coverage, conformity, homogeneity, dose to organs at risk (OAR), low dose to the surrounding tissue, total monitor units (MU), and treatment time. CK-MLC plans generated for the SBRT cases achieved more homogeneous dose to the target than the CK plans with the circular collimators, for equivalent coverage, conformity, and dose to OARs. Total monitor units were reduced by 40% to 70% and treatment time was reduced by half. The CK-MLC plans generated for the standard fractionated cases achieved prescription isodose lines between 86% and 93%, which was 2%-3% below the plans generated for conventional linacs. Compared to standard IMRT plans, the total MU were up to three times greater for the prostate (whole pelvis) plans and up to 1.4 times greater for the intracranial plans. Average treatment time was 25min for the whole pelvis plans and 19 min for the intracranial cases. The CK-MLC system provides significant improvements in treatment time and target homogeneity compared to the CK system with circular collimators, while main-taining high conformity and dose sparing to critical organs. Standard fractionated plans for large target volumes (> 100 cm3) were generated that achieved high prescription isodose levels. The CK-MLC system provides more efficient SRS and SBRT treatments and, in select clinical cases, might be a potential alternative for standard fractionated treatments.
authors.affiliation: University of California at San Francisco. mcguinnessc@radonc.ucsf.edu.
authors.forename: Christopher M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: McGuinness
authors.forename: Alexander R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Gottschalk
authors.forename: Etienne
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Lessard
authors.forename: Jean L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Nakamura
authors.forename: Dilini
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Pinnaduwage
authors.forename: Jean
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Pouliot
authors.forename: Colin
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Sims
authors.forename: Martina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Descovich
mesh_terms: D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000556:secondary / Q000601:surgery*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010315:Particle Accelerators; D010347:Patient Care Planning; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000601:surgery*; D016634:Radiosurgery; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012371:Robotics