Modifying the planning target volume to optimize the dose distribution in dynamic conformal arc therapy for large metastatic brain tumors

The Incidence and Its Associated Factors Relevant to Brain Radionecrosis That Requires Intervention Following Single or Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery Using Vero4DRT for Brain Metastases

Purpose: Several factors, including the surrounding brain volume receiving specific doses, have hitherto been reported to correlate with brain radionecrosis (BR) after single or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (sSRS or fSRS) for brain metastases (BMs); however, those, especially for fSRS, have not yet been fully elucidated. Furthermore, the clinical outcome data of patients with BM treated with SRS using Vero4DRT are extremely limited. Therefore, this study aimed to demonstrate the incidence of BR requiring intervention (BRRI) and its highly correlated factors.

Materials and Methods: Patients with BMs treated with sSRS or fSRS using Vero4DRT at Toyohashi Municipal Hospital between July 2017 and June 2021 were retrospectively reviewed, of whom patients were available for at least 20 weeks of magnetic resonance imaging follow-up from SRS were included, and analyzed. The prescribed dose fractionation schemes to the planning target volume (PTV) boundary included 24 Gy (sSRS), 35 Gy (5 fractions [fr]), 42 Gy (10 fr), and 30 Gy (3 fr), according to the tumor volume and location. The volume of the surrounding normal brain receiving 84 Gy (V84 Gy, biologically effective dose [BED₂] based on a linear-quadratic model with an alpha/beta ratio of 2, single-dose equivalent [SDE] to 12 Gy), V112 Gy (BED₂, SDE to 14 Gy) for all lesions, and all irradiated volume, including gross tumor volume (GTV) receiving 81.6 Gy (81.6 Gy vol., BED₂) for fSRS were calculated, for which cerebrospinal fluid and bone volumes were cautiously excluded. The diagnosis of tumor progression or BR dominance was based on serial T1/T2 matching.

Results: Sixty patients with 120 lesions (65 treated with sSRS and 55 treated with fSRS) were included in the final analysis, with a median follow-up period of 65 weeks. The local control rate at one year was 87.5%. The cumulative incidence of BRRI within two years was 11.5%. The risk of symptomatic BR was significantly higher for V84 Gy >10 cc (p <0.001) and V112 Gy >5 cc (p = 0.021). In the fSRS group, the cumulative incidence of Grade 3 BR and those requiring resection was significantly higher for 81.6 Gy vol. >14 cc (p = 0.003 and p = 0.004, respectively). The coexistence of viable tumor tissue and BR could not be ruled out for enlarging lesions after the nadir response, especially for fSRS, due to a lower BED₁₀ to GTV margin (<80 Gy, BED₁₀).

Conclusions: Stereotactic irradiation with Vero4DRT provided efficacy and safety comparable to previous linear accelerator series, and most of the dose-volume thresholds for BRRI presented in this study were notably lower than those reported in previous studies. This study suggests that the indication of single and up to 5 frSRS should be limited to far smaller tumors than previously acknowledged to ensure long-term safety and efficacy.

Improvement of conformal arc plans by using deformable margin delineation method for stereotactic lung radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an established treatment technique in the management of medically inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Different techniques such as volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) and three-dimensional conformal arc (DCA) can be used in SBRT. Previously, it has been shown that VMAT is superior to DCA technique in terms of plan evaluation parameters. However, DCA technique has several advantages such as ease of use and considerable shortening of the treatment time. DCA technique usually results in worse conformity which is not possible to ameliorate by inverse optimization. In this study, we aimed to analyze whether a simple method - deformable margin delineation (DMD) - improves the quality of the DCA technique, reaching similar results to VMAT in terms of plan evaluation parameters.

METHODS

Twenty stage I-II (T1-2, N0, M0) NSCLC patients were included in this retrospective dosimetric study. Noncoplanar VMAT and conventional DCA plans were generated using 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter free (FFF) photon energies. The DCA plan with 6FFF was calculated and 95% of the PTV was covered by the prescription isodose line. Hot dose regions (receiving dose over 100% of prescription dose) outside PTV and cold dose regions (receiving dose under 100% of prescription dose) inside PTV were identified. A new PTV (PTV-DMD) was delineated by deforming PTV margin with respect to hot and cold spot regions obtained from conventional DCA plans. Dynamic multileaf collimators (MLC) were set to PTV-DMD beam eye view (BEV) positions and the new DCA plans (DCA-DMD) with 6FFF were generated. Three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations were computed for PTV-DMD volume. However, the prescription isodose was specified and normalized to cover 95% volume of original PTV. Several conformity indices and lung doses were compared for different treatment techniques.

RESULTS

DCA-DMD method significantly achieved a superior conformity index (CI), conformity number (CIPaddick ), gradient index (R50% ), isodose at 2 cm (D2 cm ) and external index (CΔ) with respect to VMAT and conventional DCA plans (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). CI ranged between 1.00-1.07 (Mean: 1.02); 1.00-1.18 (Mean: 1.06); 1.01-1.23 (Mean 1.08); 1.03-1.29 (Mean: 1.15); 1.04-1.29 (Mean: 1.18) for DCA-DMD-6FFF, VMAT-6FFF, VMAT-10FFF DCA-6FFF and DCA-10FFF respectively. DCA-DMD-6FFF technique resulted significantly better CI compared to others (P = 0.002; < 0.001; < 0.001; < 0.001). R50% ranged between 3.22-4.74 (Mean: 3.99); 3.24-5.92 (Mean: 4.15) for DCA-DMD-6FFF, VMAT-6FFF, respectively. DCA-DMD-6FFF technique resulted lower intermediate dose spillage compared to VMAT-6FFF, though the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.32). D2 cm ranged between 35.7% and 67.0% (Mean: 53.2%); 42.1%-79.2% (Mean: 57.8%) for DCA-DMD-6FFF, VMAT-6FFF respectively. DCA-DMD-6FFF have significantly better and sharp falloff gradient 2 cm away from PTV compared to VMAT-6FFF (P = 0.009). CΔ ranged between 0.052 and 0.140 (Mean: 0.085); 0,056-0,311 (Mean: 0.120) for DCA-DMD, VMAT-6FFF, respectively. DCA-DMD-6FFF have significantly improved CΔ (P = 0.002). VMAT- V20 Gy , V2.5 Gy and mean lung dose (MLD) indices are calculated to be 4.03%, 23.83%, 3.42 Gy and 4.19%, 27.88%,3.72 Gy, for DCA-DMD-6FFF and DCA techniques, respectively. DCA-DMD-6FFF achieved superior lung sparing compared to DCA technique. DCA-DMD-6FFF method reduced MUs 44% and 33% with respect to VMAT-6FFF and 10FFF, respectively, without sacrificing dose conformity (P < 0.001; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that DCA plan evaluation parameters can be ameliorated by using the DMD method. This new method improves DCA plan quality and reaches similar results with VMAT in terms of dosimetric parameters. We believe that DCA-DMD is a simple and effective technique for SBRT and can be preferred due to shorter treatment and planning time.