Ali DOĞAN, Mete YEĞİNER, Fatih BİLTEKİN, Gözde YAZICI, Mustafa CENGİZ, Bülent ÜNLÜ, Gökhan ÖZYİĞİT

Dosimetric and Mechanical Stability of CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery Unit: 5 Years’ Clinical Experience

The purpose of the present study was to investigate dosimetric and mechanical stability of CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in short- and longterm period.METHODSOutput factor measurements and automated quality assurance (AQA) tests performed on CyberKnife unit 2009-2013 at radiation oncology department of Hacettepe University, Turkey, were analyzed retrospectively.RESULTSAccording to the analysis, more than 95% of the output measurements over 5 years were within the tolerance limit ≤2%. In AQA test analysis, 144 AQA test results were within the tolerance limit from 2009 to 2011. However, 7 of the 51 measurements taken in 2012, and 4 of the 47 measurements performed in 2013 exceeded 1 mm radial error.CONCLUSIONOutput and AQA data of CyberKnife system indicate that it is quite stable in daily and long-term period. Nevertheless, daily measurements should be performed on CyberKnife unit since high radiation dose per fraction is usually delivered to target volume

PDF

___

1. Sanghangthum T, Suriyapee S, Srisatit S, Pawlicki T. Retrospective analysis of linear accelerator output constancy checks using process control techniques. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013;14(1):4032.
2. Kapanen M, Bly R, Sipilä P, Järvinen H, Tenhunen M. How can a cost/benefit ratio be optimized for an output measurement program of external photon radiotherapy beams? Phys Med Biol 2011;56(7):2119–30.
3. Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, Gibbons JP Jr, Ibbott GS, Medin PM, et al. A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(1 Suppl):170–3.
4. Kapanen M, Tenhunen M, Hämäläinen T, Sipilä P, Parkkinen R, Järvinen H. Analysis of quality control data of eight modern radiotherapy linear accelerators: the short- and long-term behaviours of the outputs and the reproducibility of quality control measurements. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(14):3581–92.
5. Institution of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and Biology (IPEMB). Physical aspects of quality control in radiotherapy. IPEMB Report 81. New York: 1999.
6. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994;21(4):581–618.
7. Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS). Quality control of medical linear accelerators: current practice and minimum requirements. NCS Report 9. Delft 1996.
8. Swiss Society of Radiobiology and Medical Physics (SSRMP/SGSMP). Quality control of medical electron accelerators. SSRMP Recommendations No.11. Bern 2003.
9. World Health Organisation (WHO). Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy. Geneva 1988.
10.Biggs PJ. Review of the energy check of an electron-only linear accelerator over a 6 year period: sensitivity of the technique to energy shift. Med Phys 2003;30(4):635–9.
11.Pawlicki T, Whitaker M, Boyer AL. Statistical process control for radiotherapy quality assurance. Med Phys 2005;32(9):2777–86.
12.Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12(6):458–64.
13.Noyez L. Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009;9(3):494–9.
14.Tennant R, Mohammed MA, Coleman JJ, Martin U. Monitoring patients using control charts: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(4):187–94.
15.Boggs PB, Wheeler D, Washburne WF, Hayati F. Peak expiratory flow rate control chart in asthma care: chart construction and use in asthma care. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998;81(6):552–62.
16.Holli K, Laippala P, Ojala A, Pitkänen M. Quality control in health care: an experiment in radiotherapy planning for breast cancer patients after mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44(4):827–33.
17.Pawlicki T, Whitaker M. Variation and control of process behavior. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(1 Suppl):210–4.
18.Breen SL, Moseley DJ, Zhang B, Sharpe MB. Statistical process control for IMRT dosimetric verification. Med Phys 2008;35(10):4417–25.
19.Pawlicki T, Yoo S, Court LE, McMillan SK, Rice RK, Russell JD, et al. Moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations using control charts. Radiother Oncol 2008;89(3):330–7.
20.Gérard K, Grandhaye JP, Marchesi V, Kafrouni H, Husson F, Aletti P. A comprehensive analysis of the IMRT dose delivery process using statistical process control (SPC). Med Phys 2009;36(4):1275–85.
21.Able CM, Hampton CJ, Baydush AH, Munley MT. Initial investigation using statistical process control for quality control of accelerator beam steering. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:180.
22.Nordström F, af Wetterstedt S, Johnsson S, Ceberg C, Bäck SJ. Control chart analysis of data from a multicenter monitor unit verification study. Radiother Oncol 2012;102(3):364–70.
23.Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1999;26(9):1847–70.
24.Dieterich S, Cavedon C, Chuang CF, Cohen AB, Garrett JA, Lee CL, et al. Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery. Med Phys 2011;38(6):2914–36.
25.Sharma SC, Ott JT, Williams JB, Dickow D. Commissioning and acceptance testing of a CyberKnife linear accelerator. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007;8(3):2473.
26.International Atomic Energy Agency. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. Tech Rep Series No.398, IAEA. Vienna: 2000.