Premium
SU‐F‐SPS‐11: The Dosimetric Comparison of Truebeam 2.0 and Cyberknife M6 Treatment Plans for Brain SRS Treatment
Author(s) -
Mabhouti H,
Sanli E,
Cebe M,
Codel G,
Pacaci P,
Serin E,
Kucuk N,
Kucukmorkoc E,
Doyuran M,
Canoglu D,
Altinok A,
Acar H,
Caglar Ozkok H
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4955686
Subject(s) - truebeam , cyberknife , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , radiosurgery , dosimetry , medicine , dosimeter , ionization chamber , radiation therapy , physics , linear particle accelerator , beam (structure) , radiology , optics , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
Purpose: Brain stereotactic radiosurgery involves the use of precisely directed, single session radiation to create a desired radiobiologic response within the brain target with acceptable minimal effects on surrounding structures or tissues. In this study, the dosimetric comparison of Truebeam 2.0 and Cyberknife M6 treatment plans were made. Methods: For Truebeam 2.0 machine, treatment planning were done using 2 full arc VMAT technique with 6 FFF beam on the CT scan of Randophantom simulating the treatment of sterotactic treatments for one brain metastasis. The dose distribution were calculated using Eclipse treatment planning system with Acuros XB algorithm. The treatment planning of the same target were also done for Cyberknife M6 machine with Multiplan treatment planning system using Monte Carlo algorithm. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained using both machine by delivering 0‐ 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. Dose distribution were measured using EBT3 film dosimeter. The measured and calculated doses were compared. Results: The dose distribution in the target and 2 cm beyond the target edge were calculated on TPSs and measured using EBT3 film. For cyberknife plans, the gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.2% and 96.7% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. For Truebeam plans, the gamma analysis passing rates were 99.1% and 95.5% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. Conclusion: Although, target dose distribution calculated accurately by Acuros XB and Monte Carlo algorithms, Monte carlo calculation algorithm predicts dose distribution around the peripheral region of target more accurately than Acuros algorithm.