Assessment of single isocenter linear accelerator radiosurgery for metastases and base of skull lesions

Insights into the dosimetric and geometric characteristics of stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

GammaKnife (GK) and CyberKnife (CK) have been the mainstay stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) solution for multiple brain metastases (MBM) for several years. Recent technological advancement has seen an increase in single-isocentre C-arm linac-based SRS. This systematic review focuses on dosimetric and geometric insights into contemporary MBM SRS and thereby establish if linac-based SRS has matured to match the mainstay SRS delivery systems.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were interrogated which yielded 891 relevant articles that narrowed to 20 articles after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary studies which reported the use of SRS for treatment of MBM SRS and reported the technical aspects including dosimetry were included. The review was limited to English language publications from January 2015 to August 2023. Only full-length papers were included in the final analysis. Opinion papers, commentary pieces, letters to the editor, abstracts, conference proceedings and editorials were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. The reporting of conformity indices (CI) and gradient indices, V12Gy, monitor units and the impact of translational and rotational shifts were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

The single-isocentre technique for MBM dominated recent SRS studies and the most studied delivery platforms were Varian. The C-arm linac-based SRS plan quality and normal brain tissue sparing was comparable to GK and CK and in some cases better. The most used nominal beam energy was 6FFF, and optimised couch and collimator angles could reduce mean normal brain dose by 11.3%. Reduction in volume of the healthy brain receiving a certain dose was dependent on the number and size of the metastases and the relative geometric location. GK and CK required 4.5-8.4 times treatment time compared with linac-based SRS. Rotational shifts caused larger changes in CI in C-arm linac-based single-isocentre SRS.

CONCLUSION

C-arm linac-based SRS produced comparable MBM plan quality and the delivery is notably shorter compared to GK and CK SRS.

Plan quality assessment of modern radiosurgery technologies in the treatment of multiple brain metastases

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of multiple brain metastases has evolved over the last 40 years allowing centres to treat an increasing number of brain metastases in a single treatment fraction. HyperArcTMplanning optimisation technique is one such development that streamlines the treatment of multiple metastases with a single isocentre. Several studies have investigated the plan quality of HyperArc compared to CyberKnife or Gamma Knife, however there are limited number of studies that include all three modalities. It is the aim of this study to provide an assessment of plan quality between the three SRS platforms across ten patients with multiple brain metastases ranging from three to eight metastases per patient. Strict planning workflows were established to avoid bias towards any particular treatment platform. Plan quality was assessed through dose to organs at risk, Paddick conformity index (PCI), gradient index (GI), global efficiency index (Gη) and dose to normal brain tissue. Results from this study found mean PCI observed across Gamma Knife plans was significantly lower than HyperArc and CyberKnife. HyperArc plans observed significantly shorter beam-on times which were 10 to 20 times faster than CyberKnife and Gamma Knife plans. Gamma Knife and CyberKnife were found to produce plans with significantly superior GI, global efficiency index and the volume of healthy brain receiving greater than 12 Gy (V12Gy) when compared to HyperArc plans. Lesion volume was seen to influence the relative difference in dose metrics between systems. The study revealed that all three treatment modalities produced high quality plans for the SRS treatment of multiple brain metastases, each with respective benefits and limitations.

Verification of Qfix Encompass™ couch modeling using the Acuros XB algorithm and HypeArc™ using a high-spatial-resolution two-dimensional diode array

We modeled the Qfix Encompass™ immobilization system and further verified the calculated dose distribution of the AcurosXB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm using SRS MapCHECKⓇ (SRSMC) in the HyperArc™ (HA) clinical plan. An Encompass system with a StereoPHAN™ QA phantom was scanned by SOMATOM go.Sim and imported to an Eclipse™ treatment planning system to create a treatment plan for Encompass modeling. The Encompass modeling was performed in the StereoPHAN with a pinpoint ion chamber for 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter free (6 MV FFF), and 2 × 2 cm2, 4 × 4 cm2, and 6 × 6 cm2 irradiation field sizes. The dose calculation algorithm used was AXB ver. 15.5 with a 1.0 mm calculation grid size. The Hounsfield unit (HU) values of the Encompass modeling were set to 400, -100, -200, and -300 for Encompass, and -400, -600, -700, and -800 for the Encompass base. We evaluated the dose distribution after Encompass modeling by SRSMC using gamma analysis in 12 patients. We adopted HU values of -200 for Encompass, -800 for Encompass base for 6 MV, and -200 for Encompass and -700 for Encompass. Base for 6 MV FFF was adopted as the HU values for the Encompass modeling based on the measurement results. The proposed Encompass modeling resulted in a mean pass rate evaluation >98% for both 6 MV and 6 MV FFF when the 1%/1 mm criterion was used, demonstrating that the proposed HU value can be adopted to calculate more accurate dose distributions.

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.

Assessment of intra-fraction motion during automated linac-based SRS treatment delivery with an open face mask system

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To evaluate intra-fraction target shift during automated mono-isocentric linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery with open-face mask system and optical real-time tracking.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Ninety-five patients were treated using automated linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery in 1-5 fractions with single isocenter for a total of 195 fractions. During treatment, patient positioning was tracked real-time with optical surface guidance and immobilized with a rigid open-face mask. Patients were re-positioned if optical surface guidance error exceeded 1 mm magnitude or 1°. Translational and rotational intra-fractional changes were determined by post-treatment CBCT matched to the planning CT. Target specific error was calculated by translation and rotation matrices applied to isocenter and target spatial coordinates.

RESULTS

For 132 fractions with isocenter within a single target, the median shift magnitude was 0.40 mm with a maximum shift of 1.17 mm. A total of 398 targets treated for plans having multiple or single targets that lied outside isocenter, resulted in a median shift magnitude of 0.46 mm, with median translational shifts of 0.20 mm and 0.20° rotational shifts. A 1 mm PTV margin was insufficient in 18% of targets at a distance greater than 6 cm away from isocenter, but sufficient for 96% of targets within 6 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study support 1 mm PTV expansion due to intra-fraction motion to ensure target coverage for plans with isocenter placement less than 6 cm away from the targets.