Automated noncoplanar treatment planning strategy in stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple cranial metastases: HyperArc and CyberKnife dose distributions

Organs-at-risk dose and normal tissue complication probability with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) for head and neck cancer

We compared dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) to state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for 46 head and neck cancer cases. DTRT had lower dose to salivary glands and swallowing structure, resulting in lower predicted xerostomia and dysphagia compared to VMAT. DTRT is deliverable on C-arm linacs with high dosimetric accuracy.

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.

Stereotactic Optimized Automated Radiotherapy (SOAR): a novel automated planning solution for multi-metastatic SRS compared to HyperArc™

Objective.Automated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) planning solutions improve clinical efficiency and reduce treatment plan variability. Available commercial solutions employ a template-based strategy that may not be optimal for all SRS patients. This study compares a novel beam angle optimized Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning solution for multi-metastatic SRS to the commercial solution HyperArc.Approach.Stereotactic Optimized Automated Radiotherapy (SOAR) performs automated plan creation by combining collision prediction, beam angle optimization, and dose optimization to produce individualized high-quality SRS plans using Eclipse Scripting. In this retrospective study 50 patients were planned using SOAR and HyperArc. Assessed dose metrics included the Conformity Index (CI), Gradient Index (GI), and doses to organs-at-risk. Complexity metrics evaluated the modulation, gantry speed, and dose rate complexity. Plan dosimetric quality, and complexity were compared using double-sided Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α= 0.05) adjusted for multiple comparisons.Main Results.The median target CI was 0.82 with SOAR and 0.79 with HyperArc (p < .001). Median GI was 1.85 for SOAR and 1.68 for HyperArc (p < .001). The median V12Gy normal brain volume for SOAR and HyperArc were 7.76 cm3and 7.47 cm3respectively. Median doses to the eyes, lens, optic nerves, and optic chiasm were statistically significant favoring SOAR. The SOAR algorithm scored lower for all complexity metrics assessed.Significance.In-house developed automated planning solutions are a viable alternative to commercial solutions. SOAR designs high-quality patient-specific SRS plans with a greater degree of versatility than template-based methods.

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.

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 the gradient in gantry-table rotation on dynamic trajectory radiotherapy plan quality

BACKGROUND

To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted.

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time.

METHODS

The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path (G m a x ${G}_{max}$ ) between two adjacent control points (G = | Δ table angle / Δ gantry angle | $G = | \Delta {{\mathrm{table\ angle}}/\Delta {\mathrm{gantry\ angle}}} |$ ) and maximum absolute change of G (Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ ). Four DTRT plans are created with different maximum G&∆G:G m a x ${G}_{max}$ &Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$  = 0.5&0.125 (DTRT-1), 1&0.125 (DTRT-2), 3&0.125 (DTRT-3) and 3&1‍(DTRT-4), including 3-4 dynamic trajectories, for three clinically motivated cases in the head and neck and brain region (A, B, and C). A reference VMAT plan for each case is created. For all plans, plan quality is assessed and compared. Dosimetric plan quality is evaluated by target coverage, conformity, and OAR sparing. Dosimetric robustness is evaluated against systematic and random patient-setup uncertainties between± 3 mm $ \pm 3\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, and machine uncertainties between± 4 ∘ $ \pm 4^\circ \ $ in the dynamically rotating machine components (gantry, table, collimator rotation). Delivery time is recorded. Deliverability and delivery accuracy on a TrueBeam are assessed by logfile analysis for all plans and additionally verified by film measurements for one case. All dose calculations are Monte Carlo based.

RESULTS

The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-definedG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ to investigate the impact of the GT rotation gradient on plan quality is successfully demonstrated. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , slight (case C,D m e a n , p a r o t i d l . ${D}_{mean,\ parotid\ l.}$ : up to‍-1‍Gy) and substantial (case A,D 0.03 c m 3 , o p t i c n e r v e r . ${D}_{0.03c{m}^3,\ optic\ nerve\ r.}$ : up to -9.3 Gy, case‍B,D m e a n , b r a i n $\ {D}_{mean,\ brain}$ : up to -4.7‍Gy) improvements in OAR sparing are observed compared to VMAT, while maintaining similar target coverage. All plans are delivered on the TrueBeam. Expected and actual machine position values recorded in the logfiles deviated by <0.2° for gantry, table and collimator rotation. The film measurements agreed by >96% (2%‍global/2 mm Gamma passing rate) with the dose calculation. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , delivery time is prolonged by <2 min/trajectory (DTRT-4) compared to VMAT and DTRT-1. The DTRT plans for case A and B and the VMAT plan for case C plan reveal the best dosimetric robustness for the considered uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.

Two novel stereotactic radiotherapy methods for locally advanced, previously irradiated head and neck cancers patients

To determine the feasibility and utility of conebeam CT-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent, previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients on the Halcyon, a ring delivery system (RDS). This research aims to quantify plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and overall efficacy by comparing against novel clinical TrueBeam HyperArc method. Ten recurrent HNC patients who were treated at our institution on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) for 30 to 40 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions with noncoplanar HyperArc plans were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF). These plans were re-planned with the same Acuros-based dose engine. Additionally, we used site-specific full/partial coplanar VMAT arcs. PTV coverage, mean dose to GTV, maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OAR), beam-on time (BOT), and quality assurance (QA) results were investigated and compared. Halcyon provided highly conformal HNC SRT plans with slightly superior mean PTVD99 coverage (96.7% vs 95.5%, p = 0.071), and slightly lower mean GTV dose (37.8 Gy vs 38.2 Gy, p = 0.241) when compared to the HyperArc plans. Differences in plan conformality and maximum dose to OARs were statistically insignificant. Due to Halcyon's coplanar geometry, D2cm was significantly higher (p = 0.001) but Halcyon did result in a reduced normal brain dose by 1 Gy on average and up to 5.2 Gy in some cases. Halcyon provided similar patient-specific QA pass rates with a 2%/2mm gamma criteria (98.2% vs 98.5%) and independent in-house Monte Carlo second check results (97.7% vs 98.2%), suggesting identical treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon plans resulted in slightly longer beam-on time (3.16 vs 2.30 minutes, p = 0.010), however door-to-door patient time is expected to be <10 minutes. Compared to clinical TrueBeam HyperArc, Halcyon SRT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy with a potentially faster overall treatment using fully automated patient setup and verification. Rapid delivery of recurrent HNC SRT may reduce intrafraction motion errors while also improving patient compliance and comfort. To provide high-quality of HNC SRT similar to HyperArc, we recommend Halcyon users consider commissioning this novel method. This method will be useful for remote and underserved patient cohorts including Halcyon-only clinics as well.

Overcoming Problems Caused by Offset Distance of Multiple Targets in Single-isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning for Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of large target offset distances on the dose distribution and gamma passing rate (GPR) in single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SIMT SRS) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with a flattening filter-free (FFF) beam from a linear accelerator.

Methods

Two targets with a diameter of 1 cm were offset by "±2, ±4, and ±6 cm from the isocenter in a verification phantom for head SRS (20 Gy/fr). The VMAT plans were created using collimator angles that ensured the two targets did not share a leaf pair from the multi-leaf collimator. To evaluate the low-dose spread intermediate dose spill (R50%), GPRs were measured with a criterion of 3%/2 mm using an electronic portal imaging device and evaluated using monitor unit (MU), modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv), and leaf travel (LT) parameters.

Results

For offsets of 2, 4, and 6 cm, the respective parameters were: R50%, 4.75 ± 0.36, 5.13 ± 0.36, and 5.11 ± 0.33; GPR, 95.01%, 93.82%, and 90.67%; MU, 5893 ± 186, 5825 ± 286, and 5810 ± 396; MCSv, 0.24, 0.16, and 0.13; and LT, 189.21 ± 36.04, 327.69 ± 67.01, and 430.39 ± 114.34 mm. There was a spread in the low-dose region from offsets of ≥4 cm and the GPR negatively correlated with LT (r = -0.762). There was minimal correlation between GPR and MU or MCSv.

Conclusions

In SIMT SRS VMAT plans with an FFF beam from a linear accelerator, target offsets of <4 cm from the isocenter can minimize the volume of the low-dose region receiving 10 Gy or more. During treatment planning, it is important to choose gantry, couch, and collimator angles that minimize LT and thereby improve the GPR.

Comparison between the HyperArc™ technique and the CyberKnife® technique for stereotactic treatment of brain metastases

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the planimetric capacities between HyperArc™-based stereotactic radiosurgery and robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife® M6 for single and multiple cranial metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 51 treatment plans for cranial metastases, including 30 patients with a single lesion and 21 patients with multiple lesions, treated with the CyberKnife® M6. These treatment plans were optimized using the HyperArc™ (HA) system with the TrueBeam. The comparison of the quality of the treatment plans between the two treatment techniques (CyberKnife and HyperArc) was performed using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric parameters were compared for target volumes and organs at risk.

RESULTS

Coverage of the target volumes was equivalent between the two techniques, whereas median Paddick conformity index and median gradient index for all target volumes were 0.9 and 3.4, respectively for HyperArc plans, and 0.8 and 4.5 for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001). The median dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) for HyperArc and CyberKnife plans were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively. Total brain V18Gy and V12Gy-GTVs were 11cm³ and 20.2cm³ for HyperArc plans versus 18cm³ and 34.1cm³ for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The HyperArc provided better brain sparing, with a significant reduction in V12Gy and V18Gy, associated with a lower gradient index, whereas the CyberKnife gave a higher median GTV dose. The HyperArc technique seems to be more appropriate for multiple cranial metastases and for large single metastatic lesions.

Dosimetric quality of HyperArc in boost radiotherapy for single glioblastoma: comparison with CyberKnife and manual VMAT

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy are feasible treatment options for single glioblastoma multiforme when combined with conventional radiotherapy or delivered alone. HyperArc (HA), a novel linac-based method with 4 noncoplanar arcs, has been introduced into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for single and multiple metastases. In this study, we compared the dosimetric quality of HyperArc with the well-established CyberKnife (CK) and conventional VMAT methods of SRT for a single, large target.

METHODS

Sixteen patients treated in our center with their clinical CK plans were enrolled, and the linac-based plans were designed in silico. From the aspect of normal tissue protection and treatment efficacy, we compared the conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), dose distribution in planning target volume, dose in the normal brain tissue, and mean dose of several organs at risk (OARs). All of the data were evaluated with nonparametric Kruskal‒Wallis tests. We further investigated the relationship of the dose distribution with the tumor volume and its location.

RESULTS

The results showed that with a higher CI (0.94 ± 0.03) and lower GI (2.57 ± 0.53), the HA plans generated a lower dose to the OARs and the normal tissue. Meanwhile, the CK plans achieved a higher HI (0.35 ± 0.10) and generated a higher dose inside the tumor. Although manual VMAT showed slight improvement in dose quality and less monitoring units (2083 ± 225), HA can save half of the delivery time of CK (37 minutes) on average.

CONCLUSION

HA plans have higher conformity and spare OARs with lower normal tissue irradiation, while CK plans achieve a higher mean dose in tumors. HA with 4 arcs is sufficient in dosimetric quality for a single tumor with great convenience in planning and treatment processes compared with conventional VMAT. The tumor size and location are factors to be considered when selecting treatment equipment.

Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases

Background

Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. The aim of the study is to establish DTRT path-finding strategies, demonstrate deliverability and dosimetric accuracy and compare DTRT to state-of-the-art VMAT for common head and neck (HN) cancer cases.

Methods

A publicly available library of seven HN cases was created on an anthropomorphic phantom with all relevant organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated. DTRT plans were generated with beam incidences minimizing fractional target/OAR volume overlap and compared to VMAT. Deliverability and dosimetric validation was carried out on the phantom.

Results

DTRT and VMAT had similar target coverage. For three locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinomas and one adenoid cystic carcinoma, mean dose to the contralateral salivary glands, pharynx and oral cavity was reduced by 2.5, 1.7 and 3.1 Gy respectively on average with DTRT compared to VMAT. For a locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, D_0.03 cc to the ipsilateral optic nerve was above tolerance (54.0 Gy) for VMAT (54.8 Gy) but within tolerance for DTRT (53.3 Gy). For a laryngeal carcinoma, DTRT resulted in higher dose than VMAT to the pharynx and brachial plexus but lower dose to the upper oesophagus, thyroid gland and contralateral carotid artery. For a single vocal cord irradiation case, DTRT spared most OARs better than VMAT. All plans were delivered successfully on the phantom and dosimetric validation resulted in gamma passing rates of 93.9% and 95.8% (2%/2 mm criteria, 10% dose threshold).

Conclusions

This study provides a proof of principle of DTRT for common HN cases with plans that were deliverable on a C-arm linac with high accuracy. The comparison with VMAT indicates substantial OAR sparing could be achieved.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02092-5.

Feasibility Study of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Treatment of Glomus Jugulare Tumors via HyperArc VMAT

This study aims to report on the clinical validation and feasibility of utilizing a novel fully automated treatment planning and delivery system, HyperArc VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for glomus jugulare tumors (GJT). Independent dose verification of the HyperArc module via the MD Anderson's SRS head phantom irradiation and credentialing results showed compliance with the SRS treatment requirements per IROC MD Anderson's standard. Following the Alliance clinical trial, AAPM, RTOG protocols, and QUENTAC requirements, utilizing selected three-partial arc geometry of HyperArc module on TrueBeam Linac with 6MV-FFF beam, GJT SRS plans were generated for nine previously treated Gamma Knife (GK) radiosurgery patients using advanced Acuros-based algorithm to account for tissue inhomogeneity corrections and frameless immobilization with Q-fix mask and Encompass device insert. HyperArc VMAT produced highly conformal SRS dose distributions to GJT, a steep dose gradient around the GJT, and spared adjacent critical organs including the spinal cord (< 3.0 Gy). Due to faster patient setup and less MLC modulation through the target (average beam-on time, 6.2 minutes), the HyperArc VMAT plan can deliver a single high-dose of 18 Gy to the GJT in less than 15 minutes overall treatment time, significantly improving patient comfort and clinic workflow. Pretreatment portal dosimetry quality assurance results and independent dose verification via Monte Carlo-based physics second check met our clinical SRS protocol's requirements for treatment. Due to the highly conformal dose distribution, rapid dose fall-off, excellent sparing of adjacent critical organs, and highly precise and accurate treatment, clinical implementation of frameless HyperArc VMAT for GJT patients who may not have access to nor tolerate frame-based GK SRS treatment are underway.

Radiosurgery for Five to Fifteen Brain Metastases: A Single Centre Experience and a Review of the Literature

Purpose

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is now mainstream for patients with 1-4 brain metastases however the management of patients with 5 or more brain metastases remains controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with 5 or more brain metastases and to compare with published series as a benchmarking exercise.

Methods

Patients with 5 or more brain metastases treated with a single isocentre dynamic conformal arc technique on a radiosurgery linac were identified from the institutional database. Endpoints were local control, distant brain failure, leptomeningeal disease and overall survival. Dosimetric data were extracted from the radiosurgery plans. Series reporting outcomes following SRS for multiple brain metastases were identified by a literature search.

Results

36 patients, of whom 35 could be evaluated, received SRS for 5 or more brain metastases between February 2015 and October 2021. 25 patients had 5-9 brain metastases (group 1) and 10 patients had 10-15 brain metastases (group 2). The mean number of brain metastases in group 1 was 6.3 (5-9) and 12.3 (10-15) in group 2. The median cumulative irradiated volume was 4.6 cm³ (1.25-11.01) in group 1 and 7.2 cm³ (2.6-11.1) in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months. At last follow-up, local control rates per BM were 100% and 99.8% as compared with a median of 87% at 1 year in published series. Distant brain failure was 36% and 50% at a median interval of 5.2 months and 7.4 months after SRS in groups 1 and 2 respectively and brain metastasis velocity at 1 year was similar in both groups (9.7 and 11). 8/25 patients received further SRS and 7/35 patients received whole brain radiotherapy. Median overall survival was 10 months in group 1 and 15.7 months in group 2, which compares well with the 7.5 months derived from the literature. There was one neurological death in group 2, leptomeningeal disease was rare (2/35) and there were no cases of radionecrosis.

Conclusion

With careful patient selection, overall survival following SRS for multiple brain metastases is determined by the course of the extracranial disease. SRS is an efficacious and safe modality that can achieve intracranial disease control and should be offered to patients with 5 or more brain metastases and a constellation of good prognostic factors.

HyperArc VMAT stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent previously‐irradiated head and neck cancers: Plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and efficiency

Purpose

Materials/Methods

Results

Conclusion

The new SRS/FSRT technique HyperArc for benign brain lesions: a dosimetric analysis

To evaluate the potential benefit of HyperArc (HA) fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for the benign brain lesion. Sixteen patients with a single deep-seated, centrally located benign brain lesion treated by CyberKnife (CK, G4 cone-based model) were enrolled. Treatment plans for HA with two different optimization algorithms (SRS NTO and ALDO) and coplanar RapidArc (RA) were generated for each patient to meet the corresponding treatment plan criteria. These four FSRT treatment plans were divided into two groups—the homogeneous delivery group (HA-SRS NTO and coplanar RA) and the inhomogeneous delivery group (HA-ALDO and cone-based CK)—to compare for dosimetric outcomes. For homogeneous delivery, the brain V5, V12, and V24 and the mean brainstem dose were significantly lower with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. The conformity index, high and intermediate dose spillage, and gradient radius were significantly better with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. For inhomogeneous delivery, the HA-ALDO exhibited superior PTV coverage levels to the cone-based CK plans. Almost all the doses delivered to organs at risk and dose distribution metrics were significantly better with the HA-ALDO plans than with the cone-based CK plans. Good dosimetric distribution makes HA an attractive FSRT technique for the treatment of benign brain lesions.

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

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate our 2 years’ experience with single-isocenter, non-coplanar, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

Methods

A total of 202 patients treated with the VMAT SRS solution were analyzed retrospectively. Plan quality was assessed for 5 mm (120) and 2.5 mm (high-definition, HD) central leaf width multileaf collimators (MLCs). For BMs at varying distances from the plan isocenter, the geometric offset from the ideal position for two image-guided radiotherapy workflows was calculated. In the workflow with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, München, Germany; W‑ET), patient positioning errors were corrected at each couch rotation. In the workflow without ExacTrac (W-noET), only the initial patient setup correction was considered. The dose variation due to rotational errors was simulated for multiple-BM plans with the HD-MLC.

Results

Plan conformity and quality assurance were equivalent for plans delivered with the two MLCs while the HD-MLC plans provided better healthy brain tissue (BmP) sparing. 95% of the BMs had residual intrafractional setup errors ≤ 2 mm for W‑ET and 68% for W‑noET. For small BM (≤1 cc) situated >3 cm from the plan isocenter, the dose received by 95% of the BM decreased in median (interquartile range) by 6.3% (2.8–8.8%) for a 1-degree rotational error.

Conclusion

This study indicates that the HD-MLC is advantageous compared to the 120-MLC for sparing healthy brain tissue. When a 2-mm margin is applied, W‑noET is sufficient to ensure coverage of BM situated ≤ 3 cm of the plan isocenter, while for BM further away, W‑ET is recommended.

Predicting the effect of indirect cell kill in the treatment of multiple brain metastases via single-isocenter/multitarget volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

Due to spatial uncertainty, patient setup errors are of major concern for radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases (m‐bm) when using single‐isocenter/multitarget (SIMT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. However, recent clinical outcome studies show high rates of tumor local control for SIMT‐VMAT. In addition to direct cell kill (DCK), another possible explanation includes the effects of indirect cell kill (ICK) via devascularization for a single dose of 15 Gy or more and by inducing a radiation immune intratumor response. This study quantifies the role of indirect cell death in dosimetric errors as a function of spatial patient setup uncertainty for stereotactic treatments of multiple lesions.

Material and Methods

Nine complex patients with 61 total tumors (2‐16 tumors/patient) were planned using SIMT‐VMAT with geometry similar to HyperArc with a 10MV‐FFF beam (2400 MU/min). Isocenter was placed at the geometric center of all tumors. Average gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were 1.1 cc (0.02–11.5) and 1.9 cc (0.11–18.8) with an average distance to isocenter of 5.4 cm (2.2–8.9). The prescription was 20 Gy to each PTV. Plans were recalculated with induced clinically observable patient setup errors [±2 mm, ±2^o] in all six directions. Boolean structures were generated to calculate the effect of DCK via 20 Gy isodose volume (IDV) and ICK via 15 Gy IDV minus the 20 Gy IDV. Contributions of each IDV to the PTV coverage were analyzed along with normal brain toxicity due to the patient setup uncertainty. Induced uncertainty and minimum dose covering the entire PTV were analyzed to determine the maximum tolerable patient setup errors to utilize the ICK effect for radiosurgery of m‐bm via SIMT‐VMAT.

Results

Patient setup errors of 1.3 mm /1.3° in all six directions must be maintained to achieve PTV coverage of the 15 Gy IDV for ICK. Setup errors of ±2 mm/2° showed clinically unacceptable loss of PTV coverage of 29.4 ± 14.6% even accounting the ICK effect. However, no clinically significant effect on normal brain dosimetry was observed.

Conclusions

Radiosurgery of m‐bm using SIMT‐VMAT treatments have shown positive clinical outcomes even with small residual patient setup errors. These clinical outcomes, while largely due to DCK, may also potentially be due to the ICK. Potential mechanisms, such as devascularization and/or radiation‐induced intratumor immune enhancement, should be explored to provide a better understanding of the radiobiological response of stereotactic radiosurgery of m‐bm using a SIMT‐VMAT plan.

Management of multiple brain metastases via dual-isocenter VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery

Single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) techniques to treat multiple brain metastases simultaneously can significantly improve treatment delivery efficiency, patient compliance, and clinic workflow. However, due to large number of brain metastases sharing the same MLC pair causing island blocking, there is higher low- and intermediate-dose spillage to the normal brain and higher dose to organs-at-risk (OAR). To minimize this problem and improve plan quality, this study proposes a dual-isocenter planning strategy that groups lesions based on hemisphere location (left vs right sided) in the brain parenchyma, providing less island blocking reducing the MLC travel distance. This technique offers simplified planning while also increasing patient comfort and compliance by allowing for large number of brain metastases to be treated in 2 groups. Seven complex patients with 5 to 16 metastases (64 total) were planned with a single-isocenter VMAT-SRS technique using a 10MV-FFF beam with a prescription of 20 Gy to each lesion. The isocenter was placed at the approximate geometric center of the targets. Each patient was replanned using the dual-isocenter approach, generating 2 plans and placing each isocenter at the approximate geometric center of the combined targets of each side with corresponding non-coplanar partial arcs. Compared to single-isocenter VMAT, dual-isocenter VMAT plans provided similar target coverage and dose conformity with less spread of intermediate dose to normal brain with reduction of dose to OAR. Reduction in total monitor units and beam on time was observed, but due to the second isocenter setup and verification, overall treatment time was increased. Dual-isocenter VMAT-SRS planning for multiple brain metastases is a simplified approach that provides superior treatment options for patient compliance who may not tolerate longer traditional treatment times as with individual isocenters to each target. This planning technique significantly reduces the amount of low- and intermediate-dose spillage, further sparing OAR and normal brain, potentially improving target accuracy though localization of left vs right-sided tumors for each isocenter set up.

Radiosurgery and stereotactic irradiation of multiple and contiguous brain metastases: A practical proposal of dose prescription methods and a literature review

PURPOSE

In literature, there are no guidelines on how to prescribe dose in the case of radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic irradiation of multiple and adjacent BM. Aim of this work is to furnish practical proposals of dosimetric methods for multiple neighboring BM, and to make a literature review about the SRS treatment of multiple BM, comparing radiotherapy techniques on the basis of different dosimetric parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A theoretical proposal of dosimetric approaches to prescribe dose in case of multiple contiguous BM is done. A literature review between 2010 and 2020 was performed on MEDLINE and Cochrane databases according to the PRISMA methodology, with the following keywords dose prescription, radiosurgery, multiple BM. Papers not reporting dosimetric solutions to irradiate multiple BM were excluded.

RESULTS

Only one article in the literature reports a practical modality of dose prescription for multiple adjacent BM. Thus, we proposed other five practical solutions to prescribe radiation dose in case of two or more neighboring BM, describing advantages and drawbacks of each method in terms of different dosimetric parameters. The literature review about dosimetric solutions to irradiate multiple BM led to 56 titles; 14 articles met the chosen criteria and we reported their results in terms of dosimetric indexes and low doses to the normal brain tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

The six dosimetric approaches here described can be used by physicians for multiple contiguous BM, depending on the clinical situation. These methods may be applied in clinical studies to better evaluate their usefulness in practice.

Dynamic conformal arcs-based single-isocenter VMAT planning technique for radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases

Multiple small beamlets in the delivery of highly modulated single-isocenter HyperArc VMAT plan can lead to dose delivery errors associated with small-field dosimetry, which can be a major concern for stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain lesions. Herein, we describe and compare a clinically valuable dynamic conformal arc (DCA)-based VMAT (DCA-VMAT) approach for stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple brain lesions using flattening filter free beams to minimize this effect. Original single-isocenter HyperArc style VMAT and DCA-VMAT plans were created on 7 patients with 2 to 8 brain lesions (total 35 lesions) for 10 MV- flattening filter free beam. 20 Gy was prescribed to each lesion. For identical planning criteria, DCA-VMAT utilizes user-controlled field aperture shaper before VMAT optimization. Plans were evaluated for conformity and target coverage, low- and intermediate dose spillages to brain volume that received more than 30% (V30%) and 50% (V50%) of prescription dose. Additionally, mean brain dose, V8, V12 and maximal dose to adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) including hippocampi were reported. Total monitor units, beam modulation factor, treatment delivery efficiency, and accuracy were recorded. Comparing with original VMAT, DCA-VMAT plans provided similar tumor dose, target coverage and conformity, yet tighter radio-surgical dose distribution with lower dose to normal brain V30% (p = 0.009), V50% (p = 0.05) and other OAR including lower dose to hippocampi. Lower total number of monitor units and smaller beam modulation factor reduced beam on time by 2.82 min (p < 0.001), on average (maximum up to 3.8 min). Beam delivery accuracy was improved by 8%, on average (p < 0.001) and maximum up to 13% in some cases for DCA-VMAT plans. This novel DCA-VMAT approach provided excellent plan quality, reduced dose to normal brain, and other OAR while significantly reducing beam-on time for radiosurgery of multiple brain lesions-improving patient compliance and clinic workflow. It also provided less MLC modulation through the targets-potentially minimizing small field dosimetry errors as demonstrated by quality assurance results. Incorporating DCA-based VMAT optimization in HyperArc module for radiosurgery of multiple brain lesions merits future investigation.

Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Radiosurgery for Multiple Brain Metastases: Potential Loss of Target(s) Coverage Due to Isocenter Misalignment

Purpose A single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment to multiple brain metastatic patients is an efficient stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) option. However, the current clinical practice of single-isocenter SRS does not account for patient setup uncertainty, which degrades treatment delivery accuracy. This study quantifies the loss of target coverage and potential collateral dose to normal tissue due to clinically observable isocenter misalignment. Methods and materials Nine patients with 61 total tumors (2-16 tumors/patient) who underwent Gamma Knife® SRS were replanned in Eclipse™ using 10 megavoltages (MV) flattening-filter-free (FFF) bream (2400 MU/min), using a single-isocenter VMAT plan, similar to HyperArc™ VMAT plan. Isocenter was placed in the geometric center of the tumors. The prescription was 20 Gy to each tumor. Average gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were 1.1 cc (0.02-11.5 cc) and 1.9 cc (0.11-18.8 cc), respectively, derived from MRI images. The average isocenter to tumor distance was 5.5 cm (1.6-10.1 cm). Six-degrees of freedom (6DoF) random and systematic residual set up errors within [±2 mm, ±2o] were generated using an in-house script in Eclipse based on our pre-treatment daily cone-beam CT imaging shifts and recomputed for the simulated VMAT plan. Relative loss of target coverage as a function of tumor size and distance to isocenter were evaluated as well as collateral dose to organs-at risk (OAR). Results The average beam-on time was less than six minutes. However, loss of target coverage for clinically observable setup errors were, on average, 7.9% (up to 73.1%) for the GTV (p < 0.001) and 21.5% for the PTV (up to 93.7%; p < 0.001). The correlation was found for both random and systematic residual setup errors with tumor sizes; there was a greater loss of target coverage for small tumors. Due to isocenter misalignment, OAR doses fluctuated and potentially receive higher doses than the original plan. Conclusion A single-isocenter VMAT SRS treatment (similar to HyperArc™ VMAT) to multiple brain metastases was fast with < 6 min of beam-on time. However, due to small residual set up errors, single-isocenter VMAT, in its current use, is not an accurate SRS treatment modality for multiple brain metastases. Loss of target coverage was statistically significant, especially for smaller lesions, and may not be clinically acceptable if left uncorrected. Further investigation of correction strategies is underway.

Novel strategy with the automatic non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy for angiosarcoma of the scalp

Background

Total scalp irradiation presents technical and dosimetric challenges. While reports suggest that HyperArc, a new stereotactic radiosurgery planning technique applied to non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, is associated with high conformity and rapid dose fall-off, the performance of HyperArc for total scalp irradiation has not been explored. The current study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of HyperArc plans with those of non-coplanar VMAT plans in angiosarcoma of the scalp.

Methods

Ten patients with angiosarcoma of the scalp were included in this study. The performance of three different plans administered using TrueBeam Edge were compared: non-coplanar VMAT using flattening filter (FF) beams (VMAT-FF), HyperArc using FF beams (HyperArc-FF), and HyperArc using flattening filter free (FFF) beams (HyperArc-FFF). The dose distribution, dosimetric parameters, and dosimetric accuracy for each of these plans were evaluated.

Results

The three plans showed no statistically significant differences in target volume coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. The HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans provided significantly lower mean brain doses (12.63 ± 3.31 Gy and 12.71 ± 3.40 Gy) than did the VMAT-FF plans (17.11 ± 5.25 Gy). There were almost no differences in sparing the organs at risk between the HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans. The HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans provided a shorter beam-on time than did the VMAT-FF plan. The 3%/2 mm gamma test pass rates were above 95% for all three plans.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the HyperArc plan can be potentially used for radiation therapy of target regions with large and complicated shapes, such as the scalp, and that there are no advantages of using FFF beams.

Prediction of conical collimator collision for stereotactic radiosurgery

The purpose of this study is to predict the collision clearance distance of stereotactic cones with treatment setup devices in cone-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). The BrainLAB radiosurgery system with a Frameless Radiosurgery Positioning Array and dedicated couch top was targeted in this study. The positioning array and couch top were scanned with CT simulators, and their outer contours of were detected. The minimum clearance distance was estimated by calculating the Euclidian distances between the surface of the SRS cones and the nearest surface of the outer contours. The coordinate transformation of the outer contour was performed by incorporating the Beam's Eye View at a planned arc range and couch angle. From the minimum clearance distance, the collision-free gantry ranges for each couch angle were sequentially determined. An in-house software was developed to calculate the clearance distance between the cone surface and the outer contours, and thus determine the occurrence of a collision. The software was extensively tested for various combinations of couch and arc angles at multiple isocenter locations for two combinations of cone-couch systems. A total of 50 arcs were used to validate the calculation accuracies of the software for each system. The calculated minimum distances and collision-free angles from the software were verified by physical measurements. The calculated minimum distances were found to agree with the measurements to within 0.3 ± 0.9 mm. The collision-free arc angles from the software also agreed with the measurements to within 1.1 ± 1.1° with a 5-mm safety margin for 20 arcs. In conclusion, the in-house software was able to calculate the minimum clearance distance with <1.0 mm accuracy and to determine the collision-free arc range for the cone-based BrainLab SRS system.

Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. CyberKnife M6 for the Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases

Introduction: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is becoming more frequently used for patients with multiple brain metastases (BMs). Single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (SI-VMAT) is an emerging alternative to dedicated systems such as CyberKnife (CK). We present a dosimetric comparison between CyberKnife M6 and SI-VMAT, planned at RayStation V8B, for the simultaneous SRS of five or more BM.

Patients and Methods: Twenty treatment plans of CK-based single-session SRS to ≥5 brain metastases were replanned using SI-VMAT for delivery at an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator. Prescription dose was 20 or 18 Gy, conformally enclosing at least 98% of the total planning target volume (PTV), with PTV margin-width adapted to the respective SRS technique. Comparatively analyzed quality metrics included dose distribution to the healthy brain (HB), including different isodose volumes, conformity, and gradient indices. Estimated treatment time was also compared.

Results: Median HB isodose volumes for 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 Gy were consistently smaller for CK-SRS compared to SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). Dose falloff outside the target volume, as expressed by the gradient indices GI_high and GI_low, was consistently steeper for CK-SRS compared to SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). CK-SRS achieved a median GI_high of 3.1 [interquartile range (IQR), 2.9–1.3] vs. 5.0 (IQR 4.3–5.5) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). For GI_low, the results were 3.0 (IQR, 2.9–3.1) for CK-SRS vs. 5.6 (IQR, 4.3–5.5) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). The median conformity index (CI) was 1.2 (IQR, 1.1–1.2) for CK-SRS vs. 1.5 (IQR, 1.4–1.7) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). Estimated treatment time was shorter for SI-VMAT, yielding a median of 13.7 min (IQR, 13.5–14.0) compared to 130 min (IQR, 114.5–154.5) for CK-SRS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: SI-VMAT offers enhanced treatment efficiency in cases with multiple BM, as compared to CyberKnife, but requires compromise regarding conformity and integral dose to the healthy brain. Additionally, delivery at a conventional linear accelerator (linac) may require a larger PTV margin to account for delivery and setup errors. Further evaluations are warranted to determine whether the detected dosimetric differences are clinically relevant. SI-VMAT could be a reasonable alternative to a dedicated radiosurgery system for selected patients with multiple BM.

Patient motion tracking for non-isocentric and non-coplanar treatments via fixed frame-of-reference 3D camera

PURPOSE

As C-arm linac radiation therapy evolves toward faster, more efficient delivery, and more conformal dosimetry, treatments with increasingly complex couch motions are emerging. Monitoring the patient motion independently of the couch motion during non-coplanar, non-isocentric, or dynamic couch treatments is a key bottleneck to their clinical implementation. The goal of this study is to develop a prototype real-time monitoring system for unconventional beam trajectories to ensure a safe and accurate treatment delivery.

METHODS

An in-house algorithm was developed for tracking using a couch-mounted three-dimensional (3D) depth camera. The accuracy of patient motion detection on the couch was tested on a 3D printed phantom created from the body surface contour exported from the treatment planning system. The technique was evaluated against a commercial optical surface monitoring system with known phantom displacements of 3, 5, and 7 mm in lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions by placing a head phantom on a dynamic platform on the treatment couch. The stability of the monitoring system was evaluated during dynamic couch trajectories, at speeds between 10.6 and 65 cm/min.

RESULTS

The proposed monitoring system agreed with the ceiling mounted optical surface monitoring system in longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions within 0.5 mm. The uncertainty caused by couch vibration increased with couch speed but remained sub-millimeter for speeds up to 32 cm/min. For couch speeds of 10.6, 32.2, and 65 cm/min, the uncertainty ranges were 0.27- 0.73 mm, 0.15-0.87 mm, and 0.28-1.29 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

By mounting a 3D camera in the same frame-of-reference as the patient and eliminating dead spots, this proof of concept demonstrates real-time patient monitoring during couch motion. For treatments with non-coplanar beams, multiple isocenters, or dynamic couch motion, this provides additional safety without additional radiation dose and avoids some of the complexity and limitations of room mounted systems.