Single-isocenter stereotactic non-coplanar arc treatment of 200 patients with brain metastases: multileaf collimator size and setup uncertainties

Dosimetric Comparison between the HyperArc and Conventional VMAT in Cervical Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Background: This research aims to evaluate the usability of the HyperArc (HA) technique in stereotactic radiosurgery for cervical spine metastasis by comparing the dosimetry of the target and organs at risk, specifically the spinal cord, between HA and VMAT and conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: A RANDO® phantom and QFix EncompassTM and support system were used to simulate three target types (A, B, and C) based on RTOG0631 guidelines. Treatment plans included one VMAT and two HyperArc techniques with different SRS NTO values (100 and 250). Dosimetric parameters such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), R50, and spinal cord sparing were analyzed. Gamma analysis was performed using portal dosimetry to validate the dose delivery accuracy. Results: HyperArc plans demonstrated higher conformity, sharper dose fall-off, and improved quality assurance (QA) results compared to VMAT plans. HA with SRS NTO 250 showed even better results in terms of conformity, dose fall-off, and spinal cord dose reduction (V10 and Dmax) compared to HA with SRS NTO 100. Although the mean gamma passing rates were slightly lower, all plans achieved rates above 95%. Conclusion: The findings suggest that HA provides superior dosimetric benefits over VMAT and could be effectively utilized for cervical spine radiation therapy.

Non-coplanar Arc-Involved Beam Arrangement With Sufficient Arc Rotations Is Suitable for Volumetric-Modulated Arc-Based Radiosurgery for Single Brain Metastasis

Introduction In linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) leveraging a multileaf collimator (MLC) for brain metastasis (BM), volumetric-modulated arcs (VMAs) enable the generation of a suitable dose distribution with efficient planning and delivery. However, the arc arrangement, including the number of arcs, allocation, and rotation ranges, varies substantially among devices and facilities. Some modalities allow coplanar arc(s) (CA(s)) or beam(s) alone, and some facilities only use them intentionally despite the availability of non-coplanar arcs (NCAs). The study was conducted to examine the significance of NCAs and the optimal arc rotation ranges in VMA-based SRS for a single BM. Materials and methods This was a planning study for the clinical scenario of a single BM, including 20 clinical cases with a gross tumor volume (GTV) of 0.72-44.30 cc. Three different arc arrangements were compared: 1) reciprocating double CA alone of each 360º rotation with different collimator angles of 0 and 90º, 2) one CA and two NCAs of each 120º rotation with the shortest beam path lengths to the irradiation isocenter (NCA_L), and 3) one CA of 360º rotation and two NCAs of each 180º rotation (NCA_F). The three arcs were allocated similarly to equally divide the cranial hemisphere with different collimator angles of 0, 45, and 90º. Three VMA-based SRS plans were generated for each GTV using a 5 mm leaf-width MLC with the identical optimization method that prioritized the steepness of dose gradient outside the GTV boundary without any constraints to the GTV internal dose. A prescribed dose was uniformly assigned to the GTV D V-0.01 cc, the minimum dose of GTV minus 0.01 cc. The GTV dose conformity, the steepness of dose gradients both outside and inside the GTV boundary, the degree of concentric lamellarity of the dose gradients, and the appropriateness of the dose attenuation margin outside the GTV boundary were evaluated using metrics appropriate for each. Results The arc arrangements including NCAs showed significantly steeper dose gradients both outside and inside the GTV boundary with smaller dose attenuation margins than the CAs alone, while NCAs showed no significant advantage on the GTV dose conformity. In the NCA-involved arc arrangements, the NCA_F was significantly superior to the NCA_L in terms of the GTV dose conformity, the steepness of dose gradient outside the GTV, the degree of concentric lamellarity of the dose gradients outside and inside the GTV boundary, and the appropriateness of dose attenuation margin. However, the NCA_F showed no significant advantage on the steepness of dose increase inside the GTV boundary over the NCA_L. The dose increase just inside the prescribed isodose surface to the GTV boundary was significantly steeper with the NCA_L than the NCA_F. Conclusions In VMA-based SRS for a single BM, an arc arrangement including NCAs is indispensable, and sufficient arc rotations are suitable for achieving a dose distribution that maximizes therapeutic efficacy and safety in comparison to limited ones which are appropriate for dynamic conformal arcs. Although VMA with CAs alone can provide a non-inferior GTV dose conformity to NCAs, CA(s) alone should be applied only to situations where shorter irradiation time is prioritized over efficacy and safety.

Split-filter dual energy computed tomography radiotherapy: From calibration to image guidance

Background and purpose

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is an emerging technology in radiotherapy (RT). Here, we investigate split-filter DECT throughout the RT treatment chain as compared to single-energy CT (SECT).

Materials and methods

DECT scans were acquired with a tin-gold split-filter at 140 kV resulting in a low- and high-energy CT reconstruction (recon). Ten cancer patients (four head-and-neck (HN)​, three rectum​, two anal/pelvis and one abdomen) were DECT scanned without and with iodine administered. A cylindrical and an anthropomorphic HN phantom were scanned with DECT and 120 kV SECT. The DECT images generated were: 120 kV SECT-equivalent (CTmix), virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs), iodine map, virtual non-contrast (VNC), effective atomic number (Zeff), and relative electron density (ρe,w). The clinical utility of these recons was investigated for calibration, delineation, dose calculation and image-guided RT (IGRT).

Results

A calibration curve for 75 keV VMI had a root-mean-square-error (RMSE) of 34 HU in closest agreement with the RSME of SECT calibration. This correlated with a phantom-based dosimetric agreement to SECT of γ1%1mm > 98%. A 40 keV VMI recon was most promising to improve tumor delineation accuracy with an average evaluation score of 1.6 corresponding to "partial improvement". The dosimetric impact of iodine was in general < 2%. For this setup, VNC vs. non-contrast CTmix based dose calculations are considered equivalent. SECT- and DECT-based IGRT was in agreement within the setup uncertainty.

Conclusions

DECT-based RT could be a feasible alternative to SECT providing additional recons to support the different steps of the RT workflow.

Rotational effect and dosimetric impact: HDMLC vs 5-mm MLC leaf width in single isocenter multiple metastases radiosurgery with Brainlab Elements™

Purpose:

To analyse the impact of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width in multiple metastases radiosurgery (SRS) considering the target distance to isocenter and rotational displacements.

Methods:

Ten plans were optimised. The plans were created with Elements Multiple Mets SRS v2·0 (Brainlab AG, Munchen, Germany). The mean number of metastases per plan was 5 ± 2 [min 3, max 9], and the mean volume of gross tumour volume (GTV) was 1·1 ± 1·3 cc [min 0·02, max 5·1]. Planning target volume margin criterion was based on GTV-isocenter distance and target dimensions. Plans were performed using 6 MV with high-definition MLC (HDMLC) and reoptimised using 5-mm MLC (MLC-5). Plans were compared using Paddick conformity index (PCI), gradient index, monitor units , volume receiving half of prescription isodose (PIV50), maximum dose to brainstem, optic chiasm and optic nerves, and V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy for healthy brain were analysed. The maximum displacement due to rotational combinations was optimised by a genetic algorithm for both plans. Plans were reoptimised and compared using optimised margin.

Results:

HDMLC plans had better conformity and higher dose falloff than MLC-5 plans. Dosimetric differences were statistically significant (p < 0·05). The smaller the lesion volume, the higher the dosimetric differences between both plans. The effect of rotational displacements produced for each target in SRS was not dependent on the MLC (p > 0·05).

Conclusions:

The finer HDMLC offers dosimetric advantages compared with the MLC-5 in terms of target conformity and dose to the surrounding organs at risk. However, only dose falloff differences due to rotations depend on MLC.