Benchmarking halcyon ring delivery system for hypofractionated breast radiotherapy: Validation and clinical implementation of the fast‐forward trial

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of an iterative CBCT‐guided breast radiotherapy with Fast‐Forward trial of 26 Gy in five fractions on a Halcyon Linac. This study quantifies Halcyon plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy and efficacy by comparison with those of clinical TrueBeam plans.Materials and MethodsTen accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) patients (four right, six left) who underwent Fast‐Forward trial at our institute on TrueBeam (6MV beam) were re‐planned on Halcyon (6MV‐FFF). Three site‐specific partial coplanar VMAT arcs and an Acuros‐based dose engine were used. For benchmarking, PTV coverage, organs‐at‐risk (OAR) doses, beam‐on time, and quality assurance (QA) results were compared for both plans.ResultsThe average PTV was 806 cc. Compared to TrueBeam plans, Halcyon provided highly conformal and homogeneous plans with similar mean PTVD95 (25.72  vs. 25.73 Gy), both global maximum hotspot < 110% (p = 0.954) and similar mean GTV dose (27.04  vs. 26.80 Gy, p = 0.093). Halcyon provided lower volume of ipsilateral lung receiving 8 Gy (6.34% vs. 8.18%, p = 0.021), similar heart V1.5 Gy (16.75% vs. 16.92%, p = 0.872), V7Gy (0% vs. 0%), mean heart dose (0.96  vs. 0.9 Gy, p = 0.228), lower maximum dose to contralateral breast (3.2  vs. 3.6 Gy, p = 0.174), and nipple (19.6  vs. 20.1 Gy, p = 0.363). Compared to TrueBeam, Halcyon plans provided similar patient‐specific QA pass rates and independent in‐house Monte Carlo second check results of 99.6% vs. 97.9% (3%/2 mm gamma criteria) and 98.6% versus 99.2%, respectively, suggesting similar treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon provided shorter beam‐on time (1.49  vs. 1.68 min, p = 0.036).ConclusionCompared to the SBRT‐dedicated TrueBeam, Halcyon VMAT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy, yet potentially faster treatment via one‐step patient setup and verification with no patient collision issues. Rapid delivery of daily APBI on Fast‐Forward trial on Halcyon with door‐to‐door patient time < 10 min, could reduce intrafraction motion errors, and improve patient comfort and compliance. We have started treating APBI on Halcyon. Clinical follow‐up results are warranted. We recommend Halcyon users consider implementing the protocol to remote and underserved APBI patients in Halcyon‐only clinics.