Recently, VOLO™ was introduced as a new optimizer for CyberKnife® planning. In this study, we investigated possibilities to improve treatment plans for MLC-based prostate SBRT with enhanced peripheral zone dose while sparing the urethra, and central lung tumors, compared to existing Sequential Optimization (SO). The primary focus was on reducing OAR doses. For 25 prostate and 25 lung patients treated with SO plans, replanning with VOLO™ was performed with the same planning constraints. For equal PTV coverage, almost all OAR plan parameters were improved with VOLO™. For prostate patients, mean rectum and bladder doses were reduced by 34.2% (P < 0.001) and 23.5% (P < 0.001), with reductions in D0.03cc of 3.9%, 11.0% and 3.1% for rectum, mucosa and bladder (all P ≤ 0.01). Urethra D5% and D10% were 3.8% and 3.0% lower (P ≤ 0.002). For lung patients, esophagus, main bronchus, trachea, and spinal cord D0.03cc was reduced by 18.9%, 11.1%, 16.1%, and 13.2%, respectively (all P ≤ 0.01). Apart from the dosimetric advantages of VOLO™ planning, average reductions in MU, numbers of beams and nodes for prostate/lung were 48.7/32.8%, 26.5/7.9% and 13.4/7.9%, respectively (P ≤ 0.003). VOLO™ also resulted in reduced delivery times with mean/max reductions of: 27/43% (prostate) and 15/41% (lung), P < 0.001. Planning times reduced from 6 h to 1.1 h and from 3 h to 1.7 h for prostate and lung, respectively. The new VOLO™ planning was highly superior to SO planning in terms of dosimetric plan quality, and planning and delivery times.

CyberKnife SBRT, sequential optimizer, treatment planning for prostate and lung, VOLO™
dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13172, hdl.handle.net/1765/134086
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

Giżyńska, M.K. (Marta K.), Rossi, L, den Toom, W. (Wilhelm), Milder, M.T.W. (Maaike T. W.), de Vries, K.C. (Kim C.), Nuyttens, J.J.M.E, & Heijmen, B.J.M. (2021). Largely reduced OAR doses, and planning and delivery times for challenging robotic SBRT cases, obtained with a novel optimizer. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. doi:10.1002/acm2.13172