The aim of this study is to evaluate the patient positioning uncertainty in noncoplanar stereotactic radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) for intracranial lesions with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system. In all, 28 patients treated with SRS/SRT of 70 treatment plans at our institution were evaluated in this study. Two X‐ray images with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system were first acquired to correct (XC) and verify (XV) the patient position at a couch angle of 0º. Subsequently, the XC and XV images were also acquired at each planned couch angle for using noncoplanar beams to detect position errors caused by rotating a couch. The translational XC and XV shift values at each couch angle were calculated for each plan. The percentages of the translational XC shift values within 1.0 mm for each planned couch angle for using noncoplanar beams were 77.86%, 72.26%, and 98.47% for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. Those within 2.0 mm were 98.22%, 97.96%, and 99.75% for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. The maximum absolute values of the translational XC shifts among all planned couch angles for using noncoplanar beams were 2.69, 2.45, and 2.17 mm for the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, respectively. The overall absolute values of the translational XV shifts were less than 1.0 mm for all directions except for one case in the longitudinal direction. The patient position errors were detected after couch rotation for using noncoplanar beams, and they exceeded a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 1.0–2.0 mm used commonly in SRS/SRT treatment. These errors need to be corrected at each planned couch angle, or the PTV margin should be enlarged.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical beam commissioning results and lateral penumbra characteristics of our new pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using a multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) calculated by use of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine. Eighteen collimated uniform dose plans for cubic targets were optimized by the RayStation 9A treatment planning system (TPS), varying scan area, modulation widths, measurement depths, and collimator angles. To test the patient‐specific measurements, we also created and verified five clinically realistic PBS plans with the MLC, such as the liver, prostate, base‐of‐skull, C‐shape, and head‐and‐neck. The verification measurements consist of the depth dose (DD), lateral profile (LP), and absolute dose (AD). We compared the LPs and ADs between the calculation and measurements. For the cubic plans, the gamma index pass rates (γ‐passing) were on average 96.5% ± 4.0% at 3%/3 mm for the DD and 95.2% ± 7.6% at 2%/2 mm for the LP. In several LP measurements less than 75 mm depths, the γ‐passing deteriorated (increased the measured doses) by less than 90% with the scattering such as the MLC edge and range shifter. The deteriorated γ‐passing was satisfied by more than 90% at 2%/2 mm using uncollimated beams instead of collimated beams except for three planes. The AD differences and the lateral penumbra width (80%–20% distance) were within ±1.9% and ± 1.1 mm, respectively. For the clinical plan measurements, the γ‐passing of LP at 2%/2 mm and the AD differences were 97.7% ± 4.2% on average and within ±1.8%, respectively. The measurements were in good agreement with the calculations of both the cubic and clinical plans inserted in the MLC except for LPs less than 75 mm regions of some cubic and clinical plans. The calculation errors in collimated beams can be mitigated by substituting uncollimated beams.

After 2010, the source model of the microSelectron HDR Afterloader System was slightly modified from the previous model. Granero et al. named the modified source model “mHDR-v2r (revised model mHDR-v2)” and the previous model “mHDR-v2”. They concluded that the dosimetric differences arising from the dimensional changes between the mHDR-v2 and mHDR-v2r designs were negligible at almost all locations (within 0.5% for r ≥ 0.25 cm), the two-dimensional anisotropy function difference between the two sources is found 2.1% at r = 1.0 cm when compared with the results of the other experimental group. To confirm this difference, we performed a full Monte Carlo simulation without energy-fluence approximation. This is useful near the radiation source where charged-particle equilibrium does not hold. The two-dimensional anisotropy function of the TG-43U1 dataset showed a few percent difference between the mHDR-v2r and mHDR-v2 sources. There was no agreement in the immediate vicinity of the source (0.10 cm and 0.25 cm), when compared to Granero et al. in mHDR-v2r sources. The differences in these two-dimensional anisotropy functions were identified.