A New Beam Selection Method for MLC-Based Robotic Radiotherapy


Purpose: The CyberKnife system equipped with multileaf collimator (MLC) has been shown promising in treatment-time reduction and plan-quality improvement, because of the enhanced coverage of larger lesions and the improved target conformity. In this study, we aim to develop an efficient non-coplanar beam selection program for CyberKnife-based IMRT. Method: The candidate beam set in this study consists of 94 non-coplanar beams, each defined by a vector connecting a CyberKnife node and a target point. Our goal is to choose an adequately small number of beams that will allow the generation of high quality IMRT plans. We use the beam coverage of patient-surface as a surrogate for the solution space of beamlet-based inverse planning. Based on body-surface coverage and beam-projection overlap on the surface, a beam-selection program was developed. To evaluate the effectiveness of the beam selection method, IMRT plans with the selected beams for different treatment sites were generated using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system and compared with the IMRT plans with conventional coplanar beams. Results: Our program efficiently selected a subset of relatively small number of non-coplanar beams, while pre-serving the body-surface coverage and therefore the solution space for inverse planning optimization. For example, a set of 17 beams were selected for a pancreatic cancer case, covering 92.5% of the surface area which was covered by all the 94 candidate beams with the same field size. The IMRT plans with the selected beams show superior quality with dramatically improved critical structure sparing, as compared with the clinically approved IMRT plans. Conclusion: One can efficiently select effective sets of non-coplanar beams with our program, which allow the generation of high-quality plans for MLC-based robotic radiotherapy.

Share and Cite:

Wang, B. , Wang, J. , Li, J. , Fan, J. , Kang, J. and Ma, C. (2015) A New Beam Selection Method for MLC-Based Robotic Radiotherapy. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 4, 143-148. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.42018.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Dieterich, S. and Gibbs, I. (2011) The CyberKnife in Clinical Use: Current Roles, Future Expectations. Frontiers of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, 43, 181-194.
[2] Schweikard, A., Schlaefer, A. and Adler, J.R. (2006) Resampling: An Optimization Method for Inverse Planning in Robotic Radiosurgery. Medical Physics, 33, 4005-4011.
[3] Schlaefer, A. and Schweikard, A. (2008) Stepwise Multi-Criteria Optimization for Robotic Radiosurgery. Medical Physics, 35, 2094-2103.
[4] Fan, J., Li, J., Price, R., Jin, L., Wang, L., Chen, L. and Ma, C.M. (2010) MLC-Based CyberKnife Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Medical Physics, 37, 3217.
[5] van de Water, S., Hoogeman, M., Breedveld, S., Nuyttens, J., Schaart, D. and Heijmen, B. (2011) Variable Circular Collimator in Robotic Radiosurgery: A Time-Efficient Alternative to a Mini-Multileaf Collimator. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 81, 863-870.
[6] Breedveld, S., Storchi, P., Voetc P. and Heijmen, B. (2012) iCycle: Integrated, Multicriterial Beam Angle, and Profile Optimization for Generation of Coplanar and Noncoplanar IMRT Plans. Medical Physics, 39, 951-963.
[7] Rossi, L., Breedveld, S., Heijmen, B., Voet, P., Lanconelli, N. and Aluwini, S. (2012) On the Beam Direction Search Space in Computerized Non-Coplanar Beam Angle Optimization for IMRT-Prostate SBRT. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 57, 5441-5458.
[8] Wang, J., Wang, B., Wang, R., Fan, J., Lin, M., Li, J. and Ma, C.M. (2013) A Comprehensive Comparison of Plan Quality: Non-Coplanar IMRT vs. Rapid Arc and Conventional IMRT. Medical Physics, 40, 342.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.