Intra‐fractional motion error during HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery on patients with brain metastases: Comparison of open and full‐face clamshell‐style immobilization devices

Randomized self-controlled study comparing open-face vs. closed immobilization masks in fractionated cranial radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare patient discomfort and immobilisation performance of open-face and closed immobilization masks in cranial radiotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a single-center randomized self-controlled clinical trial. At CT simulation, an open-face and closed mask was made for each patient and treatment plans with identical dose prescription were generated for each mask. Patients were randomised to start treatment with an open-face or closed mask. Masks were switched halfway through the treatment course; every patient was their own control. Patients self-reported discomfort, anxiety and pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Inter- and intrafraction set-up variability was measured with planar kV imaging and a surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for the open-face masks.

RESULTS

30 patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors were randomized - 29 completed radiotherapy to a median total dose of 54 Gy (range 30-60 Gy). Mean discomfort VAS score was significantly lower with open-face masks (0.5, standard deviation 1.0) vs. closed masks (3.3, standard deviation 2.9), P < 0.0001. Anxiety and pain VAS scores were significantly lower with open-face masks (P < 0.0001). Closed masks caused more discomfort in infraorbital (P < 0.001) and maxillary (P = 0.02) areas. Two patients and 27 patients preferred closed or open-face masks, respectively. Interfraction longitudinal shifts and roll and yaw rotations were significantly smaller and lateral shifts were significantly larger with closed masks in combination with the laser system (P < 0.05) compared to open masks in combination with a SGRT system. Intrafraction variability did not differ between the masks.

CONCLUSIONS

Open-face masks are associated with decreased patient discomfort without compromising patient positioning and immobilisation accuracy.

A prospective randomized study comparing two frameless immobilization systems for cranial stereotactic radiotherapy

Introduction

The Dual Shell Encompass Fibreplast™ System (DS-Encompass) by CQ Medical™ is validated for frameless immobilization in stereotactic brain radiotherapy. An alternative mask model has been proposed with the rear shell replaced by a Moldcare® cushion (M-Encompass). To validate the use of this model in our cranial stereotactic workflow method including HyperArc™, we performed a prospective randomized study comparing inter-and intrafractional motion and patients comfort between both masks.

Materials & Methods

A prospective randomized study between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was conducted involving 60 participants. Stratification between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was carried out based on the fractionation scheme. Treatment plans were created with HyperArc™. During treatment, surface guidance was used for patient positioning and monitoring. A pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) was acquired to correct interfractional motion and a post-treatment CBCT was acquired to quantify the intrafractional motion. Patients reported comfort was analyzed with a Likert-scale at the end of the treatment. Unpaired t-tests were conducted to determine the level of significance.

Results

No significant difference in interfractional translations is present. A significant difference is revealed in roll-axis rotation, where DS-Encompass allows for smaller deviations. Since interfractional motion can be corrected through daily CBCT-scans and 6D-couch corrections, they are clinically irrelevant. Intrafractional motion does not differ significantly and remains below 0.5 mm and 0.5° for both systems. There is no statistical difference in patient-reported comfort.

Conclusion

We conclude that Encompass with Moldcare offers a safe alternative to Duall Shell Encompass for non-coplanar stereotactic brain radiotherapy. There is no significant difference in intrafractional motion nor difference in comfort levels.

Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the dosimetric attributes of two multi-leaf collimator based techniques, HyperArc and Incise CyberKnife, in the treatment of brain metastases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

17 cases of brain metastases were selected including 6 patients of single lesion and 11 patients of multiple lesions. Treatment plans of HyperArc and CyberKnife were designed in Eclipse 15.5 and Precision 1.0, respectively, and transferred to Velocity 3.2 for comparison.

RESULTS

HyperArc plans provided superior Conformity Index (0.91 ± 0.06 vs. 0.77 ± 0.07, p < 0.01) with reduced dose distribution in organs at risk (Dmax, p < 0.05) and lower normal tissue exposure (V4Gy-V20Gy, p < 0.05) in contrast to CyberKnife plans, although the Gradient Indexes were similar. CyberKnife plans showed higher Homogeneity Index (1.54 ± 0.17 vs. 1.39 ± 0.09, p < 0.05) and increased D2% and D50% in the target (p < 0.05). Additionally, HyperArc plans had significantly fewer Monitor Units (MUs) and beam-on time (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

HyperArc plans demonstrated superior performance compared with MLC-based CyberKnife plans in terms of conformity and the sparing of critical organs and normal tissues, although no significant difference in GI outcomes was noted. Conversely, CyberKnife plans achieved a higher target dose and HI. The study suggests that HyperArc is more efficient and particularly suitable for treating larger lesions in brain metastases.

Dosimetric effects of rotational errors for single isocenter multiple targets in HyperArc plans: A phantom and retrospective imaging analysis study

PURPOSE

This study uses a phantom to investigate the dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors for Single Isocenter Multiple Targets (SIMT) HyperArc plans. Additionally, it evaluates intra-fractional rotational setup errors in patients treated with Encompass immobilization system.

METHODS

The Varian HyperArc system (Varian Medical systems) was used to create plans targeting spherical PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm and with offsets of 1.3-5.3 cm from the isocenter. Dosimetric parameters, including mean and maximum dose, D99% and D95% were evaluated for various rotational setup errors ranging from 0.5° to 2° for the PTVs and certain CTVs created within PTVs. These rotational errors were applied in an order and direction that resulted in the maximum displacement of targets. The rotation was applied both uniformly around all three axes and individually around each axis. Furthermore, to link the findings to actual treatment scenarios, the intra-fractional rotational setup errors were obtained for stereotactic cranial patients treated with the Encompass system using CBCT images acquired during treatments.

RESULTS

The maximum displacement of 2.7 mm was observed for targets located at 4.4 and 4.5 cm from the isocenter with rotational setup errors of 2°. The dose reduction for D99% values corresponding to this displacement were about 50%, 40%, and 30% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. Both D99% and D95% showed a consistent trend of dose reduction across various rotational errors and PTV volumes. While the maximum dose remained consistent for different targets with various rotational errors, the mean dose decreased by approximately 25%, 12%, and 6% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 cm, respectively, with rotational errors of 2°. In addition, by analyzing CBCT images, the absolute mean rotational setup errors obtained during treatment with Encompass for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.17° ± 0.13°, 0.11° ± 0.10°, and 0.12° ± 0.10° respectively. This data, combined with existing studies, suggest that a 0.5° rotational setup error is a safe choice to consider for calculating additional PTV margin to ensure adequate CTV coverage. Therefore, the assessment of maximum displacement and dosimetric parameters in this study, for a 0.5° rotational error, highlights the need for an additional 0.7 mm PTV margin for targets positioned at distances of 4.4 cm or greater from the isocenter.

CONCLUSIONS

For SIMT Plans, a 0.5° rotational setup error is recommended as a basis for calculating additional PTV margins to ensure adequate CTV coverage when using the Encompass system.

Impact of magnetic resonance imaging-related geometric distortion of dose distribution in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases

PURPOSE

The geometric distortion related to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a diagnostic radiology (MRDR) and radiotherapy (MRRT) setup is evaluated, and the dosimetric impact of MR distortion on fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) in patients with brain metastases is simulated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anthropomorphic skull phantom was scanned using a 1.5‑T MR scanner, and the magnitude of MR distortion was calculated with (MRDR-DC and MRRT-DC) and without (MRDR-nDC and MRRT-nDC) distortion-correction algorithms. Automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (HyperArc, HA; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) plans were generated for 53 patients with 186 brain metastases. The MR distortion at each gross tumor volume (GTV) was calculated using the distance between the center of the GTV and the MR image isocenter (MIC) and the quadratic regression curve derived from the phantom study (MRRT-DC and MRRT-nDC). Subsequently, the radiation isocenter of the HA plans was shifted according to the MR distortion at each GTV (HADC and HAnDC).

RESULTS

The median MR distortions were approximately 0.1 mm when the distance from the MIC was < 30 mm, whereas the median distortion varied widely when the distance was > 60 mm (0.23, 0.47, 0.37, and 0.57 mm in MRDR-DC, MRDR-nDC, MRRT-DC, and MRRT-nDC, respectively). The dose to the 98% of the GTV volume (D98%) decreased as the distance from the MIC increased. In the HADC plans, the relative dose difference of D98% was less than 5% when the GTV was located within 70 mm from the MIC, whereas the underdose of GTV exceeded 5% when it was 48 mm (-26.5% at maximum) away from the MIC in the HAnDC plans.

CONCLUSION

Use of a distortion-correction algorithm in the studied MR diagnoses is essential, and the dosimetric impact of MR distortion is not negligible, particularly for tumors located far away from the MIC.

Geometric and dosimetric consequences of intra-fractional movement in single isocenter non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the geometric and dosimetric impacts of intra-fractional movement for patients with single or multiple brain metastasis treated using Varian Hyperarc™ mono-isocentric radiosurgery.

METHODS

A total of 50 single or hypo-fractionated Hyperarc™ treatment courses (118 lesions) were included in the analysis. Intra-fractional translational and rotational movements were quantified according to the post-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT). Geometric displacements of all targets were calculated individually based on the assessed head movement in each treatment fraction and their relationships with treatment time and target-to-isocenter distances were studied. For dosimetric analysis, only single-fraction treatments (56 lesions) were included. Re-planning was performed with 0, 1, and 2 mm planning target volume (PTV) margins. Doses were then re-calculated on rotated CT images with isocenter shifted which emulate the change in patient treatment position. Target coverage, target and normal brain doses before and after intra-fractional movement were compared.

RESULTS

The mean 3D target displacements was 0.6 ± 0.3 (SD) mm. Target shifts for patients treated within 10 min were significantly smaller than those treated in longer sessions. No correlation was found between target shift and target-to-isocenter distance as the origin of head rotation was not located at the isocenter. Loss of target coverage and minimum Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) dose due to intra-fractional movement were apparent only when no margin was used, leading to an extra 23% of the targets violating the dose acceptance criteria, in contrast, the effects on normal brain V_12Gy were negligible regardless of the margin used. The use of 1 mm PTV margin can compensate clinically significant geographical miss caused by intra-fractional movements while limiting V_12Gy to within dose criteria for 88% of the cases. The plan acceptance rate (fulfillment of both target and normal brain dose criteria) after intra-fractional movement was also the highest with the 1 mm margin.

CONCLUSION

Although intra-fractional movements during Hyperarc™ treatments were small, there were substantial dosimetric effects due to the sharp dose fall-off near target boundaries. These effects could be mitigated by using a 1 mm PTV margin and maintaining the effective treatment time to within 10 min.