Philadelphia CyberKnife

New Philadelphia, PA, United States

Philadelphia CyberKnife

New Philadelphia, PA, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Heal C.,Drexel University | Ding W.,Drexel University | Ding W.,Crozer Keystone Healthcare System | Lamond J.,Drexel University | And 14 more authors.
Frontiers in Oncology | Year: 2015

Introduction: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) provides a superior non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment option when compared to conventional radiotherapy for patients deemed inoperable or refusing surgery. This study retrospectively analyzed the rates of tumor control and toxicity following SABR treatment (Cyberknife system) of primary early-stage NSCLC in a community setting. Methods: One hundred patients were treated between 2007 and 2011. Patients with T3-4 or N1-3 disease, metastasis, recurrent local disease, or a non-lung primary were excluded from analysis. All patients had biopsy proven disease. Staging included CT or fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan. Median dose was 54 Gy (45-60); 18 Gy (10-20) per fraction. Median planned target volume expansion was 8 mm (2-10). Median BED was 151.2. Tumors were tracked via Synchrony, X-Sight Lung, or X-Sight Spine. Patients were evaluated for local control, overall survival (OS), and toxicity. All local failures were determined by evaluating post treatment PET/CT. Results: With a median follow up of 27.5 months, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year local control rates were 100, 93.55, and 84.33%, respectively. Median survival was 2.29 years; actuarial 3-year survival was 37.20%. Grade-3 toxicity was observed in 2% of patients (pneumonia within 2 months of treatment, n = 1; chronic pneumonitis requiring hospital admission, n = 1). No patients demonstrated toxicity above Grade-3. Multivariate analysis did not show T-stage as an independent predictor of OS, though it did trend toward significance. Conclusion: In a community-center setting, definitive treatment of NSCLC with SABR for non-surgical candidates and those who choose to forego surgery result in excellent and comparable rates of local control and toxicity compared to published series from large academic centers. © 2015 Heal, Ding, Lamond, Wong, Lanciano, Su, Yang, Feng, Arrigo, Markiewicz, Hanlon and Brady.


Yang J.,Philadelphia CyberKnife | Yang J.,Drexel University | Yang J.,Medical Physics, Inc. | Feng J.,Philadelphia CyberKnife | Feng J.,Medical Physics, Inc.
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | Year: 2014

We examined the adequacy of existing shielding guidelines using five-year clinical data from a busy CyberKnife center. From June 2006 through July 2011, 1,370 patients were treated with a total of 4,900 fractions and 680,691 radiation beams using a G4 CyberKnife. Prescription dose and total monitor units (MU) were analyzed to estimate the shielding workload and modulation factor. In addition, based on the beam's radiation source position, targeting position, MU, and beam collimator size, the MATLAB program was used to project each beam toward the shielding barrier. The summation of the projections evaluates the distribution of the shielding load. On average, each patient received 3.6 fractions, with an average 9.1 Gy per fraction prescribed at the 71.1% isodose line, using 133.7 beams and 6,200 MU. Intracranial patients received an average of 2.7 fractions, with 8.6Gy per fraction prescribed at the 71.4% isodose line, using 133 beams and 5,083 MU. Extracranial patients received an average of 3.94 fractions, with 9.2 Gy per fraction prescribed at the 71% isodose line, using 134 beams and 6,514 MU. Most-used collimator sizes for intracranial patients were smaller (7.5 to 20 mm) than for extracranial patients (20 to 40 mm). Eighty-five percent of the beams exited through the floor, and about 40% of the surrounding wall area received no direct beam. For the rest of the wall, we found "hot" areas that received above-average MU. The locations of these areas were correlated with the projection of the nodes for extracranial treatments. In comparison, the beam projections on the wall were more spread for intracranial treatments. The maximum MU any area received from intracranial treatment was less than 0.25% of total MU used for intracranial treatments, and was less than 1.2% of total MU used for extracranial treatments. The combination of workload, modulation factor, and use factor in our practice are about tenfold less than recommendations in the existing CyberKnife shielding guidelines. The current guidelines were found to be adequate for shielding, even in a busy center. There may be a potential to reduce shielding in areas with no or few direct beams in the current G4 model. Since a newer model CyberKnife (M6) has recently been introduced, the patterns of usage reported here may be changed in the future. The uneven distribution of use factor we have found may, however, be considered in the vault design.


Yang J.,Philadelphia CyberKnife | Fowler J.F.,University of Wisconsin - Madison | Lamond J.P.,Philadelphia CyberKnife | Lanciano R.,Philadelphia CyberKnife | And 2 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2010

Purpose: To define a volume of tissue just outside of the clinical target volume (CTV) or planning target volume (PTV) in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that receives doses appreciably above the tolerance level and in which other critical tissue structures must be avoided. Methods and Materials: We define the tissue between the borders of the CTV and PTV as the Inner Red Shell. The tissue surrounding the PTV that receives higher than the local tissue tolerance is defined as the Outer Red Shell. Contributing factors to the volume of the Red Shell include the prescription dose, dose gradient and PTV size, together with the type of tissue and its tolerance are discussed. An illustrative example and two clinical cases are reported. Results: The volume of Red Shell increases with higher prescription dose, slower dose fall-off, larger PTV volume, and higher tissue radiosensitivity. Avoidance of proximal critical serial organs may alter the volume and shape of the Red Shell after repeated, detailed treatment planning. Conclusion: Rather than defining tolerance and toxicity as simply a dose level received by the tissues, the volume of tissue receiving risk levels above tolerance can be quantified as the "cost" of SBRT. This concept may be adopted in other techniques offering ablative and high-dose gradients. Further consideration should be given to collecting clinical data for refining the choice of constraint doses, especially in parts of the brain, lung, liver, and kidney. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


PubMed | Philadelphia CyberKnife
Type: Journal Article | Journal: International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics | Year: 2010

To define a volume of tissue just outside of the clinical target volume (CTV) or planning target volume (PTV) in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that receives doses appreciably above the tolerance level and in which other critical tissue structures must be avoided.We define the tissue between the borders of the CTV and PTV as the Inner Red Shell. The tissue surrounding the PTV that receives higher than the local tissue tolerance is defined as the Outer Red Shell. Contributing factors to the volume of the Red Shell include the prescription dose, dose gradient and PTV size, together with the type of tissue and its tolerance are discussed. An illustrative example and two clinical cases are reported.The volume of Red Shell increases with higher prescription dose, slower dose fall-off, larger PTV volume, and higher tissue radiosensitivity. Avoidance of proximal critical serial organs may alter the volume and shape of the Red Shell after repeated, detailed treatment planning.Rather than defining tolerance and toxicity as simply a dose level received by the tissues, the volume of tissue receiving risk levels above tolerance can be quantified as the cost of SBRT. This concept may be adopted in other techniques offering ablative and high-dose gradients. Further consideration should be given to collecting clinical data for refining the choice of constraint doses, especially in parts of the brain, lung, liver, and kidney.


PubMed | Philadelphia Cyberknife
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Medical physics | Year: 2016

The study compared the dosimetry plans of Stereotatic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) prostate cancer patients using the M6 Cyberknife with Multi-leaf Collimation (MLC) compared with the plans using G4 Cyberknife with circular collimators.Eight previously treated prostate cancer patients SBRT plans using circular collimators, designed with Multiplan v3.5.3, were used as a benchmark. The CT, contours and the optimization scripts were imported into Multiplan v5.0 system and replanned with MLC. The same planning objectives were used: more than 95% of PTV received 36.25Gy, 90% of prostate received 40Gy and maximum dose <45Gy, in five fractions. For organs at risk, less than 1cc of rectum received 36Gy and less than 10cc of bladder received 37Gy. Plans were evaluated on parameters derived from dose volume. The beam number, MU and delivery time were recorded to compare the treatment efficiency.The mean CTV volume was 41.3cc (27.557.6cc) and mean PTV volume was 76.77cc (59.199.7cc). The mean PTV coverage was comparable between MLC (98.87%) and cone (98.74%). MLC plans had a slightly more favorable homogeneity index (1.22) and conformity index (1.17), than the cone (1.24 and 1.15). The mean rectum volume of 36 Gy (0.52cc) of MLC plans was slightly larger than cone (0.38cc) and the mean bladder volume of 37 Gy was smaller in MLC (1.82cc) than in cone plans (3.09cc). The mean number of nodes and beams were 65.9 and 80.5 in MLC vs 65.9 and 203.6 in cone. The mean MUs were significantly less for MLC plans (24,228MUs) than cone (32,347MUs). The total delivery time (which included 5 minutes for setup) was less, 29.6min (2632min) for MLC vs 45min (3555min) for cone.While the differences in the dosimetry between the MLC and circular collimator plans were rather minor, the MLC plans were much more efficient and required significantly less treatment time.

Loading Philadelphia CyberKnife collaborators
Loading Philadelphia CyberKnife collaborators