Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T08:14:22.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of OCRs measured with SSD and SAD setups; a step to speed up cyberknife commissioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2023

Muhammad Shahban Open the ORCID record for Muhammad Shahban [Opens in a new window] ,
Nazia Neelam Shahzadi ,
Saeed Ur Rahman  and
Muhammad Faheem
Muhammad Shahban*
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, Pakistan
Nazia Neelam Shahzadi
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, Pakistan
Saeed Ur Rahman
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Faheem
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, Pakistan
*
Corresponding author: Muhammad Shahban, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail: Shahban_butt@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Measurement of off-centre ratios (OCRs) is a requirement for the commissioning of cyberknife. The fixed source to axis distance (SAD) technique is required for the measurement of OCRs which is time-consuming and tedious. The fixed source to surface distance (SSD) technique, on the other hand, is easy to set up and requires less time. The OCRs have been measured with SAD and SSD setup and compared to assess the difference between each other.

Material and Methods:

The research is carried out on an Accuracy cyberknife M6, installed at NORI Cancer Hospital Islamabad. The OCRs are measured with Sun Nuclear ‘EDGE’ diode detector on a Sun Nuclear SNC 3D dosimetry system. The OCRs were measured for 12 cones and at three depths. Each OCR measured with the SAD setup is compared with the corresponding OCR measured with SSD setup using % dose distance and distance to agreement (2%/0·2mm).

Results:

For the within-the-beam and out-of-the beam regions, both OCRs are matching with each other. The percentage difference is in the order of less than 1% while the distance-to-agreement results in 100% matching for all cones and all depths. For the penumbra region, the percentage difference is higher than the other two regions. The maximum percentage difference is 2·96%. Generally, the percentage difference is higher for small cones and for OCRs measured at larger depths.

Conclusion:

The OCRs on a cyberknife system measured with a fixed SSD setup and fixed SAD setup coincide within an acceptable limit and can be measured with both setups with similar accuracy.

Keywords

Cyberknife commissioningOCRsSSD Setup
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e97
Check for updates
Copyright
© Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI Islamabad, Pakistan, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dieterich, S, Gibbs, IC The CyberKnife in clinical use: current role, future expectation. Front Radiat Ther Oncol 2011; 43: 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieterich, o, Pawlicki, T Cyberknife image-guided delivery and quality assurance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (1): s126–s130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kannan, M, Ninan, J, Chandrasena, P, Pande, SC, Gupta, A Commissioning of two different algorithms for stereotactic Radiosurgery M6 FI+ CyberKnife system. Int J Med Res Rev 2018; 6 (8): 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101,” AAPM, 2010.Google Scholar
Francescon, P, Kilby, W, Noll, JM, Masi, L, Satariano, N Monte Carlo simulated corrections for beam commissioning measurements with circular and MLC shaped fields on the CyberKnife M6 System: a study including diode, microchamber, point scintillator, and synthetic microdiamond detectors. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62 (1): 1642–1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
“IAEA TRS 483-Dosimetry of Small Static Fields used in External Beam Radiation Therapy,” IAEA, Vienna Austria, 2013.Google Scholar
Physics Essentials Guide, 11.1.x ed., Sunnyvale, USA: Accuray Inc, 2018.Google Scholar
Sharma, SC, Ott, JT, Williams, JB, Dickow, D Commissioning and acceptance testing of a CyberKnife linear accelerator. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almond, PR, Biggs, PJ, Coursey, BM, Hanson, WF, Haq, SU “AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energyphoton and electron beams,” AAPM, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, J, Campos, G, Ponte, F SAD VS SSD METHODS FOR CYBERKNIFE OCR MEASUREMENTS. Phys Med Abstracts 2016; 32: 284–339.Google Scholar
EDGE detector user guide Model 1118, Sun Nuclear Inc., 2020.Google Scholar
Bacala, AM Linac photon beam fine-tuning in PRIMO using the gamma-index analysis toolkit. Bacala Radiat Oncol 2020; 15(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1455-1 Google ScholarPubMed
Dowlatabad, H, Mowlvi, A, Gorbani, M, Mohammadi, S Monte Carlo simulation of siements primus plus Linac for 6 and 18MV photon bemas. J Biomed Phys Eng 2017; 7 (4): 333–346.Google Scholar