Craniospinal Irradiation: A Dosimetric Comparison Between O-Ring Linac and Conventional C-arm Linac

Theodoros Stroubinis; Michalis Psarras; Anna Zygogianni; Maria Protopapa; Vassilis Kouloulias; Kalliopi Platoni

doi:10.1016/j.adro.2022.101139

Craniospinal Irradiation: A Dosimetric Comparison Between O-Ring Linac and Conventional C-arm Linac

Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022 Dec 6;8(2):101139. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101139. eCollection 2023 Mar-Apr.

Authors

Theodoros Stroubinis¹, Michalis Psarras¹, Anna Zygogianni², Maria Protopapa¹, Vassilis Kouloulias³, Kalliopi Platoni⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology and Stereotactic Radiosurgery, Mediterraneo Hospital, Athens, Greece.
² Radiation Oncology Unit, 1st Department of Radiology, Aretaieion University Hospital, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece.
³ Radiation Oncology Unit, 2nd Department of Radiology, Attikon University Hospital, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece.
⁴ Medical Physics Unit, 2nd Department of Radiology, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to perform a dosimetric evaluation between craniospinal irradiation volumetric modulated arc therapy plans designed for an O-Ring and a conventional C-arm Linac.

Methods and materials: Two adult patients were selected for this study. Two plans were designed one for a TrueBeam Edge and one for Halcyon O-ring Linac for each patient. The evaluation of the plans was conducted in terms of dose volume histogram analysis of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) along with total plan monitor units and beam-on time. Paired sample t test was performed to compare D_max and D_mean of OARs for each plan's comparison. The delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans was evaluated using Octavius 4D phantom.

Results: All plans demonstrated dose distributions with sufficient planned target volume conformity and homogeneity. The Homogeneity Index and Conformity Index for all plans were found comparable. The paired sample t test did not demonstrate significant difference in terms of D_max and D_mean of OARs between plans for both patients. All plans met the threshold of 90%, with Halcyon plans having higher gamma passing rates.

Conclusions: Craniospinal irradiation plans generated for Halcyon and Edge are equivalent in terms of plan quality and dose sparing at OARs. The small variations may have originated from the differences in beam profile or mean energy, the degree of the modulation for each plan and characteristics of multi leaf collimators for each treatment unit. Halcyon is able to deliver a distinctly faster treatment, but Edge provides an automatic rotational correction for patient positioning.