Background/Objectives: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for skull base reirradiation is particularly challenging, as patients have already received substantial radiation doses to the region, and nearby normal organs may have approached their tolerance limit from prior treatments. In this study, we reviewed the characteristics and capabilities of four advanced external beam radiation delivery systems and four modern treatment planning systems and evaluated the treatment plan quality of each technique using skull base reirradiation patient cases. Methods: SBRT plans were generated for sixteen skull base reirradiation patients using four modalities: the GK plan for the Elekta Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion/ICON, the CyberKnife (CK) plan for the Accuray CyberKnife, the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan for the Hitachi ProBeat-FR proton therapy machine, and the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan for the Varian TrueBeam STx. These plans were evaluated and compared using two novel gradient indices in addition to traditional dosimetry metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs). The steepest border gradient quantified the percent prescription dose fall-off per millimeter at the boundary between the target and adjacent critical structures. This gradient index highlighted the system’s ability to spare nearby critical OARs. The volume gradient assessed the extent of dose spread outside the target toward the patient’s body. Results: All plans achieved comparable target coverage and conformity, while IMPT and VMAT demonstrated significantly better uniformity. The GK plans exhibited the highest border gradient, up to 20.9%/mm, followed by small-spot-size IMPT plans and CK plans. Additionally, IMPT plans showed the benefit of reduced dose spread in low-dose regions and the lowest maximum and mean doses to the brainstem and carotid artery. Conclusions: The advanced external beam radiotherapy modalities evaluated in this study are well-suited for SBRT in skull base reirradiation, which demands precise targeting of tumors with highly conformal doses and steep dose gradients to protect nearby normal structures.
AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests
AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator.MethodsA risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance.ResultsThe recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test.ConclusionThis guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.