RapidArc in Bergen Britt Nygaard, Harald Valen and Ellen Wasbø Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Jan 14, 2016
RapidArc in Bergen
Britt Nygaard, Harald Valen and Ellen Wasbø
Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
2
• 2007: – Trilogy with RapidArc option
• 2008: – Scandidos Delta4 QA tool– Aria upgrade: RapidArc on the Trilogy and 23iX
• Autumn 2009: – Course in Bellinzona and Zug– Stay-and-learn in Copenhagen– Eclipse AAA configuration– Machine QA and patient QA procedures
• 2010:– Decisions, decisions.. Which category of patients?– Learning RapidArc doseplanning in Eclipse– 1st patient on 14th of June – 2nd on 22nd of November
3
Quality control
• Commisioning tests as suggested by Memorial Sloan-Kettering CC and Varian– A picket fence test during RapidArc– 7 adjacent fields with varying Dose rate & Gantry
speed– 4 adjacent fields with varying MLC speed & Gantry
speed
– Possible to study combined effect of • dose rate and gantry speed• dynamic MLC and variable dose rate
C. C. Ling et. al: Commissioning and Quality Assurance of RapidArc Delivery System. Radiotherapy, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 575–581, 2008.
10
Analyse results• Dynalog files
– Log planned and actual leaf positions and leaf speed vs. time
– Log gantry speed vs. Time– How TrueBeam
• Tool: ”Analyse Dynalog”– In-house developed (EW)– Language: IDL
12
Patient QA
• Delta4– Daily dose correction– Run and measure Verification plan– Pass / Fail criteria
• Dose deviation– > 85% within ±3% deviation
• Distance to agreement– > 98% with DTA ≤ 3mm
• Gamma index 3%, 3mm– > 95% with index ≤ 1
15
Clinac 23EX (2004), RapidArc in 2011: Failed T2 & T3 commissioning tests
Patient QA Dose dev. within ±3%
DTA < 3mm γ < 1 (3%, 3mm)
PAB 90,7% 100% 100%
GB 83,7% 100% 100%
TER 95,8% 100% 99,4%
GDG 85,5% 100% 100%
EKGP 85,9% 100% 100%
MS 83,0% 100% 100%
17
Treatment planning, Autumn 2010:
• 5 years experience with IMRT– head and neck– prostate with and without lymph nodes (LN)– ani (and gyn) with LN – Sarcoma, lymphoma and other
• RA configuration and acceptance tests OK • RA installed on 2 Clinacs • Patient start up
18
Which patient groups?
• Increased efficiency for the department – Prostate with LN, 7 splitted fields
• Patients unable to keep the supine position for 10-15 min– Head and neck
• Less MU and less risk for secondary cancer• A category that is easy to create acceptable and
standardized plans for– Prostate intermediate risk
19
Which patient groups?
• Increased efficiency for the department – Prostate with LN, 7 splitted fields
• Patients unable to keep the supine position for 10-15 min– Head and neck
• Less MU and less risk for secondary cancer• A category that is easy to create acceptable and
standardized plans for– Prostate intermediate risk
20
Prostate intermediate risk, criteria:• Treatment of prostate and seminal vesicles
• Equal plan or better than IMRT (PTV and rectum)
• We made two plans, one IMRT (backup) and one RA, 1 arc 135-225° (avoid couch slides) for the 10 first patients
• PTV 95%-107%, median 100%,
• Rectum: max 10ml >60 Gy and less than 50 Gy to half the circumference
• Delta4 measurements OK; • Gamma index 3%, 3mm
– > 95% with index ≤ 1
• Dose deviation– > 85% within ±3% deviation
25
RA today: (2.4 Gy sem.ves. and integrated boost 2.7 Gy prostate) x 25 = 67.5 Gy (EQD2= 81 Gy if α/β=1.5)
28
7 field-IMRT
1499 MU (2.7 Gy)
555 MU/Gy
(calibration factor 130MU/Gy)
2 full arc RA
611 MU (2.7 Gy)
Prostate high risk: 2 Gy to the lymph nodes, integrated boost; 2.4 Gy sem.ves. and 2.7 Gy prost, 25 fractions