Is Halcyon feasible for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT?

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2022-01, Vol.23 (1), p.e13458-n/a
• Main Authors: Li, Fang, Park, Jeonghoon, Lalonde, Ron, Jang, Si Young, diMayorca, Maria Stefania, Flickinger, John C., Keller, Andrew, Huq, Mohammed Saiful
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain cancer; Dosimetry; Halcyon; Humans; Metastasis; Patients; Planning; Prostate; Radiation; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Retrospective Studies; Spinal cord; Spine; spine metastasis; stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); Tumors
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13458

Purpose Halcyon linear accelerators employ intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques. The Halcyon offers translational, but not rotational, couch correction, which only allows a 3 degrees of freedom (3‐DOF) correction. In contrast, the TrueBeam (TB) linear accelerator offers full 6‐DOF corrections. This study aims to evaluate the difference in treatment plan quality for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT between the Halcyon and TB linear accelerators. In addition, this study will also investigate the effect of patient rotational setup errors on the final plan quality. Methods We analyzed 20 patients with a single‐level spine metastasis located between the T7 and L5 vertebrae near the spinal canal. The median planning target volume was 52.0 cm3 (17.9–138.7 cm3). The median tumor diameter in the axial plane was 4.6 cm (range 1.7–6.8 cm), in the sagittal plane was 3.3 cm (range 2–5 cm). The prescription doses were either 12–16 Gy in 1 fraction or 18–24 Gy in 3 fractions. All patients were treated on the TB linear accelerator with a 2.5 mm Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width. Treatment plans were retrospectively created for the Halcyon, which has a 5 mm effective MLC leaf width. The 20 patients had a total of 50 treatments. Analysis of the 50 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans showed average rotational setup errors of 0.6°, 1.2°, and 0.8° in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively. Rotational error in roll was not considered in this study, as the original TB plans used a coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, and each 1° of roll will contribute an error of 1/360. If a plan has 3 arcs, the contribution from errors in roll will be