Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2025

Voluntary Breath-hold Technique for Reducing Heart Dose in Left Breast Radiotherapy
Published on: July 3, 2014
Benchmarking halcyon ring delivery system for hypofractionated breast radiotherapy: Validation and clinical
Damodar Pokhrel1, Mason Smith1, Alexander Volk1
1Department of Radiation Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Purpose:
The 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 Methods:
Ten 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.
Results:
The 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).
Conclusion:
Compared 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.
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview

