Optimization of Treatment Geometry to Reduce Normal Brain Dose in Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases with Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Exploring feasibility criteria for stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of multiple brain metastases using five linac machines

PURPOSE

This study aimed to find descriptors that correlates with normal brain dose to determine the feasibility of performing fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for multiple brain metastases (BMs) using five linac machines.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with 1-30 BMs were enrolled. Treatment plans were created using TrueBeam, Novalis Tx, TrueBeam Edge, Halcyon, and Tomotherapy linacs. The sum of all planning target volumes (PTVs) was defined as PTVall, and the brain region excluding PTVall was defined as normal brain. The total surface area (TSA) of the PTV was calculated from the sum of the surface areas of the equivalent spheres for each PTV. Volumes receiving more than 5, 12, and 18 Gy (V5Gy, V12Gy, and V18Gy, respectively) were used for evaluation of normal brain dose. Correlations between normal brain dose and each tumor characteristic (number, PTVall, and TSA) were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Correlations between each characteristic and normal brain dose were statistically significant (p < 0.05) across all machines. The correlation coefficients between each characteristic and V18Gy for the five machines were as follows: tumor number, 0.39-0.60; PTVall, 0.79-0.93; TSA, 0.93-0.99. The fit equations between TSA and V18Gy exhibited high coefficients of determination, ranging from 0.92 to 0.99 across five machines.

CONCLUSION

This study devised fractionated SRS plans using for 1-30 BMs across five linac machines to find descriptors for determining SRS feasibility based on normal brain dose. TSA proved to be a promising descriptor of SRS feasibility for treating multiple BMs.

Assessing tumor volumetric reduction with consideration for setup errors based on mathematical tumor model and microdosimetric kinetic model in single-isocenter VMAT for brain metastases

The volumetric reduction rate (VRR) was evaluated with consideration for six degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) patient setup errors based on a mathematical tumor model in single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (SI-VMAT) for brain metastases. Simulated gross tumor volumes (GTV) of 1.0 cm and dose distribution were created (27 Gy/3 fractions). The distance between the GTV center and isocenter (d) was set at 0-10 cm. The GTV was translated within 0-1.0 mm (Trans) and rotated within 0-1.0° (Rot) in the three axis directions using affine transformation. The tumor growth volume was calculated using a multicomponent mathematical model (MCTM), and lethal effects of irradiation and repair from damage during irradiation were calculated by a microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) A549 and NCI-H460 (H460) cells. The VRRs were calculated 5 days after the end of irradiation using the physical dose to the GTV for varying d and 6DoF setup errors. The tolerance value of VRR, the GTV volume reduction rate, was set at 5%, based on the pre-irradiation GTV volume. With the exception of the only one A549 condition where (Trans, Rot) = (1.0 mm, 1.0°) was repeated for 3 fractions, all conditions met all the tolerance VRR values for A549 and H460 cells with varying d from 0 to 10 cm. Evaluation based on the mathematical tumor model suggested that if the 6DoF setup errors at each irradiation could be kept within 1.0 mm and 1.0°, there would be little effect on tumor volume regardless of the distance from the isocenter in SI-VMAT.

Optimization of collimator angle combined island blocking with parked gap achieves superior normal tissue sparing in SBRT planning of multiple liver lesions

PURPOSE

To propose an efficient collimator angle optimization method by combining island blocking (IB) and parked gap (PG) problem to reduce the radiotherapy dose for normal tissue. The reduction will be done with single-isocenter multi-lesion volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of liver cancer.

METHODS

A novel collimator angle optimization algorithm was developed based on the two-dimensional projection of targets on a beam's eye view (BEV) plane as a function of gantry and collimator angle. This optimization algorithm minimized the sum of the combined IB and PG (IB & PG) areas from all gantry angles for each arc. For comparison, two SBRT plans were respectively generated for each of the 20 retrospective liver cancer cases with multiple lesions. One plan was optimized using the IB & PG algorithm, and the other plan was optimized with a previously reported optimization algorithm that only considered the IB area. Plans were then evaluated and compared using typical dosimetric metrics.

RESULTS

With the comparable target coverage, IB & PG plans had significantly lower D500cc, D700cc, mean dose (Dmean), and V15 of normal liver tissues when compared to IB plans. The median percent reductions were 3.32% to 5.36%. The D1cc, D5cc, and Dmean for duodenum and small intestine in IB & PG plans were significantly reduced in a range from 7.60% up to 16.03%. Similarly, the median integral dose was reduced by 3.73%. Furthermore, the percentage of normal liver Dmean sparing when IB & PG plans compared to IB plans, was found to be positively correlated (ρ = 0.669, P = 0.001) with the inter-target distance.

CONCLUSION

The proposed IB & PG algorithm has been demonstrated to outperform the IB algorithm in almost all normal tissue sparing, and the magnitude of liver sparing was positively correlated with inter-target distance.

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.

Multicomponent mathematical model for tumor volume calculation with setup error using single-isocenter stereotactic radiotherapy for multiple brain metastases

We evaluated the tumor residual volumes considering six degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) patient setup errors in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) with multicomponent mathematical model using single-isocenter irradiation for brain metastases. Simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with 1.0 (GTV 1), 2.0 (GTV 2), and 3.0 (GTV 3)-cm diameters were used. The distance between the GTV center and isocenter (d) was set at 0-10 cm. The GTV was simultaneously translated within 0-1.0 mm (T) and rotated within 0°-1.0° (R) in the three axis directions using affine transformation. We optimized the tumor growth model parameters using measurements of non-small cell lung cancer cell lines' (A549 and NCI-H460) growth. We calculated the GTV residual volume at the irradiation's end using the physical dose to the GTV when the GTV size, d, and 6DoF setup error varied. The d-values that satisfy tolerance values (10%, 35%, and 50%) of the GTV residual volume rate based on the pre-irradiation GTV volume were determined. The larger the tolerance value set for both cell lines, the longer the distance to satisfy the tolerance value. In GTV residual volume evaluations based on the multicomponent mathematical model on SRT with single-isocenter irradiation, the smaller the GTV size and the larger the distance and 6DoF setup error, the shorter the distance that satisfies the tolerance value might need to be.

Detection of rotational errors in single-isocenter multiple-target radiosurgery: Is a routine off-axis Winston-Lutz test necessary?

Purpose

Recently the use of linear accelerator (linac)‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has increased, including single‐isocenter multiple‐target SRS. The workload of medical physicists has grown as a result and so has the necessity of maximizing the efficiency of quality assurance (QA). This study aimed to determine if measurement‐based patient‐specific QA with a high‐spatial‐resolution dosimeter is sensitive to rotational errors, potentially reducing the need for routine off‐axis Winston–Lutz (WL) testing.

Methods

The impact of rotational errors along gantry, couch, and collimator axes on dose coverage of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) was determined with a 1‐mm GTV/PTV expansion margin. Two techniques, the off‐axis WL test using the StereoPHAN MultiMet‐WL Cube (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida, USA) and patient‐specific QA using the SRS MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida, USA), were assessed on their ability to detect introduced errors before target coverage was compromised. These findings were also considered in the context of routine machine QA of rotational axis calibrations.

Results

Rotational errors significantly impacted PTV dose coverage, especially in the couch angle. GTV dose coverage remained unaffected except for with large couch angle errors (≥1.5°). The off‐axis WL test was shown to be sensitive to rotational errors with results consistently exceeding tolerance levels when or before coverage fell below departmentally accepted limits. Although patient‐specific QA using the SRS MapCHECK was previously validated for SRS, this study showed inconsistency in detection of rotational errors.

Conclusions

It is recommended that off‐axis WL testing be conducted regularly to supplement routine monthly machine QA, as it is sensitive to errors that patient‐specific QA may not detect. This frequency should be determined by individual departments, with consideration of GTV–PTV margins used, limitations on target off‐axis distances, and routine mechanical QA results for particular linacs.

intra-Arc binary collimation with dynamic axes trajectory optimization for SRS treatment of multiple metastases with multiple prescriptions

PURPOSE

This work generates multi-metastases cranial SRS/SRT plans using a novel treatment planning technique in which dynamic couch, collimator and gantry trajectories are used with periodic binary target collimation. The performance of this planning technique is evaluated against conventional VMAT planning in terms of various dose and plan quality metrics.

METHODS

A 3D cost space (referred to herein as the combined optimization of dynamic axes, or CODA cube) was calculated based on overlap between targets and OARs and uncollimated areas between targets (island blocking) for all combinations of couch, gantry and collimator angles. Gradient descent through the cube was applied to determine dynamic trajectories. At each control point (CP), each target can either be conformally treated or blocked by the MLC (referred to as intra-arc binary collimation, iABC). Simulated annealing was used to optimize the collimation patterns throughout the arcs as well as the monitor units (MUs) delivered at each CP. Seven previously treated VMAT plans were selected for comparison against the CODA-iABC planning technique. Two CODA-iABC plans were developed: a single gantry arc plan and a plan with one gantry arc and two couch arcs. Plan quality comparison metrics included: maximum and mean dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) (brainstem, chiasm, optic nerves, eyes, and lenses), the volume of normal brain receiving 12Gy (V12Gy), total MUs, target conformity, and dose gradient index.

RESULTS

Treatment plans generated with 1-arc CODA-iABC plans delivered an average of 21% and 30% higher maximum and mean doses to brainstem, respectively, when compared to VMAT plans. Treatment plans generated with 3-arc CODA-iABC used an average of 24% fewer MUs and resulted in an average reduction of 48% maximum dose and 50% mean dose to the OARs, when compared to VMAT. Target conformity values were worse in both CODA-iABC plans than VMAT by an average of 35% and 15%, respectively. There are no significant differences in V12Gy for all three planning techniques, however 3-arc CODA-iABC is more effective at reducing dose to normal brain in the low dose region (<12Gy).

CONCLUSION

CODA-iABC is a novel planning technique that has been developed to automatically generate patient-specific multi-axes trajectories for multiple metastases cranial SRS/SRT. This work has demonstrated the feasibility of planning with this novel method. 1-arc CODA-iABC planning technique is slightly dosimetric inferior to VMAT. With increased sampling of a three-dimensional CODA cube by using a 3-arc CODA-iABC technique, there was improved total dose sparing to all the OARs and increased MU efficiency, but with a cost in target conformity, when compared to VMAT. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of dosimetric impact of intra-fractional setup discrepancy between multiple- and single-isocenter approaches in linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain metastases

Introduction

Treatment of multiple brain metastases by linac‐based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) can employ either a multiple‐isocenter (MI) or single‐isocenter (SI) approach. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the dosimetric results of MI and SI approaches and compare the impacts of intra‐fractional setup discrepancies on the robustness of respective approaches using isocenter shifts, whether the same magnitude of translational and rotational effects could lead to a significant difference between the two approaches.

Methods

Twenty‐two patients with multiple brain metastases treated by linac‐based SRT were recruited. Treatment plans were computed with both the MI and SI approaches. For the MI approach, the isocenter was located at the geometric center of each planning target volumes (PTVs), whereas the isocenter of the SI approach was located midway between the PTV centroids. To simulate the intra‐fractional errors, isocenter displacements including translational and rotational shifts were hypothetically applied. Apart from the dosimetric outcomes of the two approaches, the impact of the isocenter shifts on PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded in terms of the differences (δ) in dose parameters relative to the reference plan and was then compared between the MI and SI approaches.

Results

Both MI and SI plans met the plan acceptance criteria. The mean Paddick conformity index (Paddick CI) and D_max of most OARs between MI and SI plans did not show a significant difference, except that higher doses to the left optic nerve and optic chiasm were found in SI plans (p = 0.03). After the application of the isocenter shifts, δCI increased with an increase in the magnitude of the isocenter shift. When comparing between MI and SI plans, the δCIs were similar (p > 0.05) for all extents of translational shifts, but δCIs were significantly higher in SI plans after application of all rotations particularly ±1.5° and ±2.0° shifts. Despite the result that the majority of δD_Max of OARs were higher in the SI plans, only the differences in the left optic nerve and chiasm showed generally consistent significance after both translational ≥±1 mm and rotational shifts of ≥±1∘.

Conclusion

Both MI and SI approaches could produce clinically acceptable plans. However, isocenter shifts brought dosimetric impacts to both MI and SI approaches and the effects increased with the increase of the shift magnitude. Although similar impacts were shown in plans of both approaches after translational isocenter shift, SI plans were relatively more vulnerable than MI plans to rotational shifts.

Treatment of multiple intracranial metastases in radiation oncology: a contemporary review of available technologies

The use of stereotactic radiosurgery to treat multiple intracranial metastases, frequently concurrently, has become increasingly common. The ability to accurately and safely deliver stereotactic radiosurgery treatment to multiple intracranial metastases (MIM) relies heavily on the technology available for targeting, planning, and delivering the dose. A number of platforms are currently marketed for such applications, each with intrinsic capabilities and limitations. These can be broadly categorised as cobalt-based, linac-based, and robotic. This review describes the most common representative technologies for each type along with their advantages and current limitations as they pertain to the treatment of multiple intracranial metastases. Each technology was used to plan five clinical cases selected to represent the clinical breadth of multiple metastases cases. The reviewers discuss the different strengths and limitations attributed to each technology in the case of MIM as well as the impact of disease-specific characteristics (such as total number of intracranial metastases, their size and relative proximity) on plan and treatment quality.

The use of collimator angle optimization and jaw tracking for VMAT-based single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery for up to six targets in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system

PURPOSE

Island blocking occurs in single-isocenter multiple-target (SIMT) stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS) whenever targets share multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf pairs. This study investigated the effect on plan quality and delivery, of reducing island blocking through collimator angle optimization (CAO). In addition, the effect of jaw tracking in this context was also investigated.

METHODS

For CAO, an algorithm was created that selects the collimator angle resulting in the lowest level of island blocking, for each beam in any given plan. Then, four volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) SIMT SRS plans each were generated for 10 retrospective patients: two CAO plans, with and without jaw tracking, and two plans with manually selected collimator angles, with and without jaw tracking. Plans were then assessed and compared using typical quality assurance procedures.

RESULTS

There were no substantial differences between plans with and without CAO. Jaw tracking produced statistically significant reduction in low-dose level parameters; healthy brain V10% and mean dose were reduced by 9.66% and 15.58%, respectively. However, quantitative values (108 cc for V10% and 0.35 Gy for mean dose) were relatively small in relation to clinical relevance. Though there were no statistically significant changes in plan deliverability, there was a notable trend of plans with jaw tracking having lower gamma analysis pass rates.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that CAO has limited benefit in VMAT SIMT SRS of 2-6 targets when using a low-dose penalty to the healthy brain during plan optimization in Eclipse. As clinical benefits of jaw tracking were found to be minimal and plan deliverability was potentially reduced, a cautious approach would be to exclude jaw tracking in SIMT SRS plans.

Longitudinal Grouping of Target Volumes for Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy of Multiple Brain Metastases

Purpose

Treatment of multiple brain metastases with single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy causes unnecessary exposure to normal brain tissue. In this study, a longitudinal grouping method was developed to reduce such unnecessary exposure.

Materials and Methods

This method has two main aspects: grouping brain lesions longitudinally according to their longitudinal projection positions in beam’s eye view, and rotating the collimator to 90° to make the multiple leaf collimator leaves conform to the targets longitudinally group by group. For 11 patients with multiple (5–30) brain metastases, two single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated using a longitudinal grouping strategy (LGS) and the conventional strategy (CVS). The prescription dose was 52 Gy for 13 fractions. Dose normalization to 100% of the prescription dose in 95% of the planning target volume was adopted. For plan quality comparison, Paddick conformity and the gradient index of the planning target volume, and the mean dose, the V_100%, V_50%, V_25%, and V_10% volumes of normal brain tissue were calculated.

Results

There were no significant differences between the LGS and CVS plans in Paddick conformity (p = 0.374) and the gradient index (p = 0.182) of the combined planning target volumes or for V_100% (p = 0.266) and V_50% (p = 0.155) of the normal brain. However, the V_25% and V_10% of the normal brain which represented the low-dose region were significantly reduced in the LGS plans (p = 0.004 and p = 0.003, respectively). Consistently, the mean dose of the entire normal brain was 12.04 and 11.17 Gy in the CVS and LGS plans, respectively, a significant reduction in the LGS plans (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

The longitudinal grouping method can decrease unnecessary exposure and reduces the low-dose range in normal brain tissue.

Single isocenter SRS using CAVMAT offers improved robustness to commissioning and treatment delivery uncertainty compared to VMAT

Purpose

In this study, we evaluate and compare single isocenter multiple target VMAT (SIMT) and Conformal Arc Informed VMAT (CAVMAT) radiosurgery's sensitivity to uncertainties in dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and treatment delivery. CAVMAT is a novel planning technique that uses multiple target conformal arcs as the starting point for limited inverse VMAT optimization.

Methods

All VMAT and CAVMAT plans were recalculated with DLG values of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 mm. DLG effect on V_6Gy[cc], V_12Gy[cc], and V_16Gy[cc], and target dose was evaluated. Plans were delivered to a Delta⁴ (ScandiDos, Madison, WI) phantom and gamma analysis performed with varying criteria. Log file analysis was performed to evaluate MLC positional error. Sixteen targets were delivered to a SRS MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) to evaluate VMAT and CAVMAT's dose difference (DD) as a function of DLG.

Results

VMAT's average maximum and minimum target dose sensitivity to DLG was 9.08 ±3.50%/mm and 9.50 ± 3.30%/mm, compared to 3.20 ± 1.60%/mm and 4.72 ± 1.60%/mm for CAVMAT. For VMAT, V_6Gy[cc], V_12Gy[cc], and V_16Gy[cc] sensitivity was 35.83 ± 9.50%/mm, 34.12 ± 6.60%/mm, and 39.23 ± 8.40%/mm. In comparison, CAVMAT's sensitivity was 23.19 ± 4.50%/mm, 22.45 ± 4.40%/mm, and 24.88 ± 4.90%/mm, respectively. Upon delivery to the Delta⁴, CAVMAT offered superior dose agreement compared to VMAT. For a 1%/1 mm gamma analysis, VMAT and CAVMAT had a passing rate of 94.53 ± 4.40% and 99.28 ± 1.70%, respectively. CAVMAT was more robust to DLG variation, with the SRS MapCHECK plans yielding an absolute average DD sensitivity of 2.99 ± 1.30%/mm compared to 5.07 ± 1.10%/mm for VMAT. Log files demonstrated minimal differences in MLC positional error for both techniques.

Conclusions

CAVMAT remains robust to delivery uncertainties while offering a target dose sensitivity to DLG less than half that of VMAT, and 65% of that of VMAT for V_6Gy[cc], V_12Gy[cc], and V_16Gy[cc]. The superior dose agreement and reduced sensitivity of CAVMAT to DLG uncertainties indicate promise as a robust alternative to VMAT for SIMT SRS.

Radiobiological evaluation considering setup error on single-isocenter irradiation in stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

We calculated the dosimetric indices and estimated the tumor control probability (TCP) considering six degree‐of‐freedom (6DoF) patient setup errors in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using a single‐isocenter technique.

Methods

We used simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with diameters of 1.0 cm (GTV 1), 2.0 cm (GTV 2), and 3.0 cm (GTV 3), and the distance (d) between the target center and isocenter was set to 0, 5, and 10 cm. We created the dose distribution by convolving the blur component to uniform dose distribution. The prescription dose was 20 Gy and the dose distribution was adjusted so that D95 (%) of each GTV was covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The GTV was simultaneously rotated within 0°–1.0° (δR) around the x‐, y‐, and z‐axes and then translated within 0–1.0 mm (δT) in the x‐, y‐, and z‐axis directions. D95, conformity index (CI), and conformation number (CN) were evaluated by varying the distance from the isocenter. The TCP was estimated by translating the calculated dose distribution into a biological response. In addition, we derived the x‐y‐z coordinates with the smallest TCP reduction rate that minimize the sum of squares of the residuals as the optimal isocenter coordinates using the relationship between 6DoF setup error, distance from isocenter, and GTV size.

Results

D95, CI, and CN were decreased with increasing isocenter distance, decreasing GTV size, and increasing setup error. TCP of GTVs without 6DoF setup error was estimated to be 77.0%. TCP were 25.8% (GTV 1), 35.0% (GTV 2), and 53.0% (GTV 3) with (d, δT_,δR) = (10 cm, 1.0 mm, 1.0°). The TCP was 52.3% (GTV 1), 54.9% (GTV 2), and 66.1% (GTV 3) with (d, δT_,δR) = (10 cm, 1.0 mm, 1.0°) at the optimal isocenter position.

Conclusion

The TCP in SRS for multiple brain metastases with a single‐isocenter technique may decrease with increasing isocenter distance and decreasing GTV size when the 6DoF setup errors are exceeded (1.0 mm, 1.0°). Additionally, it might be possible to better maintain TCP for GTVs with 6DoF setup errors by using the optimal isocenter position.

Effective method to reduce the normal brain dose in single-isocenter hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for multiple brain metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Island blocking and dose leakage problems will lead to unnecessary irradiation to normal brain tissue (NBT) in hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for multiple brain metastases (BM) with single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The present study aimed at investigating whether reducing the number of metastases irradiated by each arc beam could minimize these two problems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 32 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with multiple BM received HSRT (24-36 Gy/3 fractions) with single-isocenter VMAT, where each arc beam only irradiated partial metastases (pm-VMAT), were enrolled in this retrospective study. Conventional single-isocenter VMAT plans, where each arc beam irradiated whole metastases (wm-VMAT), was regenerated and compared with pm-VMAT plans. Furthermore, the clinical efficacy and toxicities were evaluated.

RESULTS

Pm-VMAT achieved similar target coverage as that with wm-VMAT, with better dose fall-off (P < 0.001) and NBT sparing (P < 0.001). However, pm-VMAT resulted in more monitor units (MU) and longer beam-on time (P < 0.001). The intracranial objective response rate and disease control rate for all patients were 75% and 100%, respectively. The local control rates at 1 year and 2 year were 96.2% and 60.2%, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-13.2) and 18.5 months (95% CI 15.9-20.1), respectively. All treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and 3 lesions (2.31%) from 2 patients (6.25%) demonstrated radiation necrosis after HSRT.

CONCLUSION

HSRT with pm-VMAT is effective and has limited toxicities for NSCLC patients with multiple BM. Pm-VMAT could provide better NBT sparing while maintaining target dose coverage.

Maximum distance in single-isocenter technique of stereotactic radiosurgery with rotational error using margin-based analysis

Through geometrical simulation, we evaluated the effect of rotational error in patient setup on geometrical coverage and calculated the maximum distance between the isocenter and target, where the clinical PTV margin secures geometrical coverage with a single-isocenter technique. We used simulated spherical GTVs with diameters of 1.0 (GTV 1), 1.5 (GTV 2), 2.0 (GTV 3), and 3.0 cm (GTV 4). The location of the target center was set such that the distance between the target and isocenter ranged from 0 to 15 cm. We created geometrical coverage vectors so that each target was entirely covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The vectors of the target positions were simultaneously rotated within a range of 0°-2.0° around the x-, y-, and z-axes. For each rotational error, the reduction in geometrical coverage of the targets was calculated and compared with that obtained for a rotational error of 0°. The tolerance value of the geometrical coverage reduction was defined as 5% of the GTV. The maximum distance that satisfied the 5% tolerance value for different values of rotational error at a clinical PTV margin of 0.1 cm was calculated. When the rotational errors were 0.5° for a 0.1 cm PTV margin, the maximum distances were as follows: GTV 1: 7.6 cm; GTV 2: 10.9 cm; GTV 3: 14.3 cm; and GTV 4: 21.4 cm. It might be advisable to exclude targets that are > 7.6 cm away from the isocenter with a single-isocenter technique to satisfy the tolerance value for all GTVs.

Effect of setup error in the single-isocenter technique on stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases

In conventional stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), treatment of multiple brain metastases using multiple isocenters is time‐consuming resulting in long dose delivery times for patients. A single‐isocenter technique has been developed which enables the simultaneous irradiation of multiple targets at one isocenter. This technique requires accurate positioning of the patient to ensure optimal dose coverage. We evaluated the effect of six degrees of freedom (6DoF) setup errors in patient setups on SRS dose distributions for multiple brain metastases using a single‐isocenter technique. We used simulated spherical gross tumor volumes (GTVs) with diameters ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 cm. The distance from the isocenter to the target's center was varied from 0 to 15 cm. We created dose distributions so that each target was entirely covered by 100% of the prescribed dose. The target's position vectors were rotated from 0°–2.0° and translated from 0–1.0 mm with respect to the three axes in space. The reduction in dose coverage for the targets for each setup error was calculated and compared with zero setup error. The calculated margins for the GTV necessary to satisfy the tolerance values for loss of GTV coverage of 3% to 10% were defined as coverage‐based margins. In addition, the maximum isocenter to target distance for different 6DoF setup errors was calculated to satisfy the tolerance values. The dose coverage reduction and coverage‐based margins increased as the target diameter decreased, and the distance and 6DoF setup error increased. An increase in setup error when a single‐isocenter technique is used may increase the risk of missing the tumor; this risk increases with increasing distance from the isocenter and decreasing tumor size.

Effects of Multileaf Collimator Design and Function When Using an Optimized Dynamic Conformal Arc Approach for Stereotactic Radiosurgery Treatment of Multiple Brain Metastases With a Single Isocenter: A Planning Study

Background Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or fractionated SRS (fSRS) are effective options for the treatment of brain metastases. When treating multiple metastases with a linear accelerator-based approach, a single isocenter allows for efficient treatment delivery. In this study, we present our findings comparing dosimetric parameters of Brainlab (Munich, Germany) Elements™ Multiple Brain Mets SRS (MME) software (version 1.5 versus version 2.0) for a variety of scenarios and patients. The impact of multileaf collimator design and function on plan quality within the software was also evaluated. Materials and methods Twenty previously treated patients with a total of 58 lesions (from one to seven lesions each) were replanned with an updated version of the multiple brain Mets software solution. For each plan, the mean conformity index (CI), mean gradient index (GI), the volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy (V12), and mean brain dose were evaluated. Additionally, all v2.0 plans were further evaluated with jaw tracking for by Elekta (Stockholm, Sweden) and HD120™ multileaf collimator by Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, USA). Results The new software version demonstrated improvements for CI, GI and V12 (p <0.01). For the Elekta Agility™ multileaf collimator, jaw tracking improved all dosimetric parameters except for CI (p =0.178) and mean brain dose (p =0.93). For the Varian with HD120 multileaf collimator, all parameters improved. Conclusions The software enhancements in v2.0 of the software provided improvements in planning efficiency and dosimetric parameters. Differences in multileaf collimator design may provide an additional incremental benefit in a subset of clinical scenarios.

Implementation and validation of an in-house geometry optimization software for SRS VMAT planning of multiple cranial metastases

Purpose

The implementation and evaluation of an in‐house developed geometry optimization (GO) software are described. The GO script provides optimal lesion clustering, isocenter placement, and collimator angle of each arc for cranial multi‐lesion stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning.

Materials and methods

An Eclipse‐plugin program was developed to facilitate automatic plan geometry generation for multiple metastases SRS VMAT plans. A mixed, semi‐supervised exhaustive and k‐means clustering method is used to group lesions and place isocenters. The sum of squared euclidean distance (SSED) and the boundaries of lesions’ projection from beams’ eye view are used as supervised parameters to determine the optimal isocenter numbers. The collimator angle is optimized by minimizing the sum of the MLC opening area from all gantry angles for each arc. In all, 10 clinical cases treated during 2016–2017 were compared to plan quality of GO script generated plans. Paddick gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), and local brain volume receiving 12 Gy (local V12 Gy) around each lesion were compared.

Result

For four cases, the number of isocenters was reduced in the GO plans. For four other cases, the GO plans had the same number of isocenters as their corresponding clinical plans but with different lesion grouping. The GO plans had significantly lower GI (4.1 ± 1.0 vs 4.4 ± 0.9, P < 0.0001) and local V12 Gy (5.1 ± 4.2 vs 5.5 ± 4.3 in cm³, P < 0.0001), but not significantly different mean normal brain dose or CI. The volume of normal brain receiving ≥6 Gy was significantly lower in the GO plans. The total time to run the GO script for each case was <2 min.

Conclusion

The GO software automates lesion grouping, isocenter placement, and the collimator angles for SRS VMAT planning. When tested on 10 cases, the GO script resulted in improved plan quality and shorter planning time when compared to the clinical SRS VMAT plans.

Retrospective quality metrics review of stereotactic radiosurgery plans treating multiple targets using single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE

To characterize key plan quality metrics in multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans treated using single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in comparison to dynamic conformal arc (DCA) plans treating single target. To investigate the feasibility of quality improvement in VMAT planning based on previous planning knowledge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

97 VMAT plans of multi-target and 156 DCA plans of single-target treated in 2017 at a single institution were reviewed. A total of 605 targets were treated with these SRS plans. The prescription dose was normalized to 20 Gy in all plans for this analysis. Two plan quality metrics, target conformity index (CI) and normal tissue volume receiving more than 12 Gy (V12Gy), were calculated for each target. The distribution of V12Gy per target was plotted as a function of the target volume. For multi-target VMAT plans, the number of targets being treated in the same plan and the distance between targets were calculated to evaluate their impact on V12Gy. VMAT plans that had a large deviation of V12Gy from the average level were re-optimized to determine the possibility of reducing the variation of V12Gy in VMAT planning.

RESULTS

Conformity index of multi-target VMAT plans were lower than that of DCA plans while the mean values of 12 Gy were comparable. The V12Gy for a target in VMAT plan did not show apparent dependence on the total number of targets or the distance between targets. The distribution of V12Gy exhibited a larger variation in VMAT plans compared to DCA plans. Re-optimization of outlier plans reduced V12 Gy by 33.9% and resulted in the V12Gy distribution in VMAT plans more closely resembling that of DCA plans.

CONCLUSION

The benchmark data on key plan quality metrics were established for single-isocenter multi-target SRS planning. It is feasible to use this knowledge to guide VMAT planning and reduce high V12Gy outliers.

A web-based brain metastases segmentation and labeling platform for stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a standard of care for patients' with brain metastases (BMs). However, the manual multiple BMs delineation can be time-consuming and could create an efficiency bottleneck in SRS workflow. There is a clinical need for automatic delineation and quantitative evaluation tools. In this study, building on our previous developed deep learning-based segmentation algorithms, we developed a web-based automated BMs segmentation and labeling platform to assist the SRS clinical workflow.

METHOD

This platform was developed based on the Django framework, including a web client and a back-end server. The web client enables interactions as database access, data import, and image viewing. The server performs the segmentation and labeling tasks including: skull stripping; deep learning-based BMs segmentation; and affine registration-based BMs labeling. Additionally, the client can display BMs contours with corresponding atlas labels, and allows further postprocessing tasks including: (a) adjusting window levels; (b) displaying/hiding specific contours; (c) removing false-positive contours; (d) exporting contours as DICOM RTStruct files; etc. RESULTS: We evaluated this platform on 10 clinical cases with BMs number varied from 12-81 per case. The overall operation took about 4-5 min per patient. The segmentation accuracy was evaluated between the manual contour and automatic segmentation with several metrics. The averaged center of mass shift was 1.55 ± 0.36 mm, the Hausdorff distance was 2.98 ± 0.63 mm, the mean of surface-to-surface distance (SSD) was 1.06 ± 0.31 mm, and the standard deviation of SSD was 0.80 ± 0.16 mm. In addition, the initial averaged false-positive over union (FPoU) and false-negative rate (FNR) were 0.43 ± 0.19 and 0.15 ± 0.10 respectively. After case-specific postprocessing, the averaged FPoU and FNR were 0.19 ± 0.10 and 0.15 ± 0.10 respectively.

CONCLUSION

The evaluated web-based BMs segmentation and labeling platform can substantially improve the clinical efficiency compared to manual contouring. This platform can be a useful tool for assisting SRS treatment planning and treatment follow-up.

Noncoplanar VMAT for Brain Metastases: A Plan Quality and Delivery Efficiency Comparison With Coplanar VMAT, IMRT, and CyberKnife

Purpose:

To compare plan quality and delivery efficiency of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy with coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife for multiple brain metastases.

Methods:

For 15 patients with multiple brain metastases, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in 3 fractions were generated. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans consisted of 4 noncoplanar arcs and 2 full coplanar arcs, respectively. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans consisted of 7 coplanar fields. CyberKnife plans used skull tracking to ensure accurate position. All plans were generated to cover 95% target volume with prescription dose. Gradient index, conformity index, normal brain tissue volume (V_3Gy − V_24Gy), monitor units, and beam on time were evaluated.

Results:

Gradient index was the lowest for CyberKnife (3.49 ± 0.65), followed by noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.21 ± 1.38), coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.87 ± 1.35), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (5.36 ± 1.98). Conformity index was the largest for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.87 ± 0.03), followed by coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.86 ± 0.04), CyberKnife (0.86 ± 0.07), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (0.85 ± 0.05). Normal brain tissue volume at high-to-moderate dose spreads (V_24Gy − V_9Gy) was significantly reduced in noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy over that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Normal brain tissue volume for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy was comparable with noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy at high-dose level (V_24Gy − V_15Gy) and larger than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level (V_12Gy − V_3Gy). Monitor units was highest for CyberKnife (28 733.59 ± 7197.85), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (4128.40 ± 1185.38), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (3105.20 ± 371.23), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2997.27 ± 446.84). Beam on time was longest for CyberKnife (30.25 ± 7.32 minutes), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (2.95 ± 0.85 minutes), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.61 ± 0.07 minutes), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.30 ± 0.23 minutes).

Conclusion:

For brain metastases far away from organs-at-risk, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy generated more rapid dose falloff and higher conformity compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy provided a comparable dose falloff with CyberKnife at high-dose level and a slower dose falloff than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans had less monitor units and shorter beam on time than CyberKnife plans.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy: planning comparison with Dual-arc and Split-arc partial-field techniques

BACKGROUND

Although whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) provides palliation and prophylaxis, reduces local recurrence probability and improves overall survival, it is evident that WBRT is associated with neurocognitive deficits due to radiation induced damage of the hippocampus. Therefore, minimizing hippocampal dose to the least possible level is of high clinical relevance. In dual-arc conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (dac-VMAT), the large irradiation field for whole brain planned target volume (PTV) requires a wide jaw opening in which substantial low dose volume to the hippocampus may be produced due to suboptimal multi-leaf collimator (MLC) movements. The present study investigates the potential of a radiation therapy technique with split-arc and reduced field size, namely split-arc partial-field volumetric modulated arc therapy (sapf-VMAT) to spare the hippocampus during WBRT.

METHODS

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance images of 20 patients with brain metastases were retrieved in this retrospective planning study. The hippocampus was manually delineated by single radiation oncologist strictly following the RTOG 0933 atlas definition. Plans delivering 30 Gy in 10 fractions were generated for each patient using dac-VMAT and sapf-VMAT. Dosimetric parameters from both techniques were compared by paired t-test.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated that radiation dose to the hippocampus was significantly reduced using sapf-VMAT relative to dac-VMAT plans. sapf-VMAT (7.86Gy, p = 0.001) had significantly lowered average D_100% compared to dac-VMAT (9.23 Gy). Decrease in hippocampus D_max using sapf-VMAT (13.23 Gy, p = 0.001) was statistically significant when compared to dac-VMAT (16.33 Gy). The resulting mean dose to the hippocampus was 9.16 Gy for the for sapf-VMAT. Mean dose of sapf-VMAT was significantly lower than dac-VMAT (10.85 Gy, p < 0.05). In both eyes, sapf-VMAT demonstrated significantly lower D_mean compared to dac-VMAT (p < 0.05). Whole brain PTV coverage was not compromised in both techniques.

CONCLUSION

sapf-VMAT has demonstrated significant dose reduction to the hippocampus and both eyes compared to dac-VMAT.

Single-Isocenter Multitarget Stereotactic Radiosurgery Is Safe and Effective in the Treatment of Multiple Brain Metastases

Purpose

Multiple studies have reported favorable outcomes for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the treatment of limited brain metastases. An obstacle of SRS in the management of numerous metastases is the longer treatment time using traditional radiosurgery. Single-isocenter multitarget (SIMT) SRS is a novel technique that permits rapid therapy delivery to multiple metastases. There is a lack of clinical evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. We report the outcomes of patients treated with this technique.

Methods and Materials

We reviewed the records of patients with intact or resected brain metastases treated with SRS in 1 to 5 fractions using SIMT technique at our institution, with at least 1 available follow-up brain magnetic resonance imaging. Survival, disease control, and toxicity were evaluated using Cox regression, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results

We identified 173 patients with 1014 brain metastases. Median follow up was 12.7 months. Median beam-on time was 4.1 minutes. The median dose to the brain was 219.4 cGy. Median overall survival and freedom from intracranial progression were 13.2 and 6.3 months, respectively. Overall survival did not differ between patients treated with greater than or less than 4 lesions (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.61; P = .91). Actuarial 1- and 2-year local control were 99.0% and 95.1%, respectively. Rates of grade 2 and grade 3 or higher radionecrosis were 1.4% and 0.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

SIMT radiosurgery delivered in 1 to 5 fractions offers excellent local control and acceptable toxicity in the treatment of multiple intact and postoperative brain metastases. This technique should be evaluated prospectively.

Effect of collimator angle on HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery planning for single and multiple brain metastases

We assessed the effect of collimator angle on the dosimetric parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) for collimator-optimized HA (CO-HA) and non-CO-HA (nCO-HA) plans. The nCO-HA and CO-HA plans were retrospectively generated for 26 patients (1 to 8 brain metastases). The dosimetric parameters for planning target volume (homogeneity index [HI]; conformity index [CI]; gradient index [GI]) and for OARs were compared. The modulation complexity score for volumetric modulated arc therapy (MCSV) and monitor units (MUs) were calculated. Doses were measured using the electronic portal imaging device and compared with the expected doses. Dosimetric parameters of the HI, CI, and GI for single (n = 12) and multiple (n = 14) metastases cases were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan provided lower V_4Gy, V_12Gy, V_14Gy, V_16Gy for brain tissue compared to the nCO-HA plan (p < 0.05). Doses for OARs (D_0.1cc) (brainstem, chiasm, Hippocampus, lens, optic nerves, and retinas) were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan resulted in less complex multileaf collimator (MLC) patterns (MCSV = 0.19 ± 0.04, p < 0.01), lower MUs (8596 ± 1390 MUs, p < 0.01), and shorter beam-on time (6.2 ± 1.0 min, p < 0.01) compared to the nCO-HA plan (0.16 ± 0.04, 9365 ± 1630, and 6.7 ± 1.2 for MCSV, MUs, and beam-on time, respectively). For both treatment approach, the equivalent gamma passing rate was obtained with the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria (p > 0.05). The collimator optimization in the HA planning reduced doses to brain tissues and improved the treatment efficacy.

Evaluation of a magnetic resonance guided linear accelerator for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the systematic localization accuracy, treatment planning capability, and delivery accuracy of an integrated magnetic resonance imaging guided Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) platform for stereotactic radiosurgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The phantom for the end-to-end test comprises three different compartments: a rectangular MR/CT target phantom, a Winston-Lutz cube, and a rectangular MR/CT isocenter phantom. Hidden target tests were performed at gantry angles of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees to quantify the systematic accuracy. Five patient plans with a total of eleven lesions were used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. Single-isocenter IMRT treatment plans using 10-15 coplanar beams were generated to treat the multiple metastases.

RESULTS

The end-to-end localization accuracy of the system was 1.0 ± 0.1 mm. The conformity index, homogeneity index and gradient index of the plans were 1.26 ± 0.22, 1.22 ± 0.10, and 5.38 ± 1.44, respectively. The average absolute point dose difference between measured and calculated dose was 1.64 ± 1.90%, and the mean percentage of points passing the 3%/1 mm gamma criteria was 96.87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that excellent plan quality and delivery accuracy was achievable on the MR-Linac for treating multiple brain metastases with a single isocenter.

Fully automated searching for the optimal VMAT jaw settings based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning

PURPOSE

Eclipse treatment planning system has not been able to optimize the jaw positions for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). The arbitrary and planner-dependent jaw placements define the maximum field size within which multi-leaf-collimator (MLC) sequences can be optimized to modulate the beam. Considering the mechanical constraints of MLC transitional speed and range, suboptimal X jaw settings may impede the optimization or undermine the deliverability. This work searches optimal VMAT jaw settings automatically based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using an ESAPI script, the X jaws of rectal VMAT plans were initially set to conform the planning-target-volume (PTV), and were gradually extended toward the isocenter (PTV center) in 5-7 mm increments. Using these jaw pairs, 592 plans were automatically created for 10 patients and quantitatively evaluated using a comprehensive scoring function. A published RapidPlan model was evoked by ESAPI to generate patient-specific optimization objectives without manual intervention. All candidate plans were first stored as text files to save storage space, and only the best, worst, and conformal plans were consequently recreated for comparison.

RESULTS

Although RapidPlan estimates dose-volume histogram (DVH) based on individual anatomy, the geometry-based expected dose (GED) algorithm does not recognize different jaw settings but uses PTV-conformal jaws as default; hence, identical DVHs were observed regardless of planner-defined jaws. Therefore, ESAPI finalized dose-volume calculation and eliminated the plans with unacceptable hotspots before comparison. The plan quality varied dramatically with different jaw settings. Trade-offs among different organs-at-risk (OARs) were collectively considered by the proposed scoring method, which identified the best and worst plans correctly. The plans using conformal jaws were neither the best nor the worst of all candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT plans using optimal jaw locations can be created automatically using ESAPI and RapidPlan. Conformal jaws are not the optimal choice.

HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach

Purpose

The HyperArc VMAT (HA-VMAT) planning approach was newly developed to fulfill the demands of dose delivery for brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery. We compared the dosimetric parameters of the HA-VMAT plan with those of the conventional VMAT (C-VMAT).

Material and methods

For 23 patients (1–4 brain metastases), C-VMAT and HA-VMAT plans with a prescription dose of 20–24 Gy were retrospectively generated, and dosimetric parameters for PTV (homogeneity index, HI; conformity index, CI; gradient index, GI) and brain tissue (V_2Gy-V_16Gy) were evaluated. Subsequently, the physical characteristics (modulation complexity score for VMAT, MCSV; Monitor unit, MU) of both treatment approaches were compared.

Results

HA-VMAT provided higher HI (1.41 ± 0.07 vs. 1.24 ± 0.07, p < 0.01), CI (0.93 ± 0.02 vs. 0.90 ± 0.05, p = 0.01) and lower GI (3.06 ± 0.42 vs. 3.91 ± 0.55, p < 0.01) values. Moderate-to-low dose spreads (V_4Gy-V_16Gy) were significantly reduced (p < 0.01) in the HA-VMAT plan over that of C-VMAT. HA-VMAT plans resulted in more complex MLC patterns (lower MCSV, p < 0.01) and higher MU (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

HA-VMAT plans provided significantly higher conformity and rapid dose falloff with respect to the C-VMAT plans.

Evaluation of multiple factors affecting normal brain dose in single-isocenter multiple target radiosurgery

We investigated the effects of multiple planning factors on normal brain dose for single-isocenter VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Ten patients were retrospectively planned using a standardized objective function and all 16 combinations of 2 versus 4 arcs, collimator angle 45° versus selected per beam to minimize area of normal brain exposed in the beams-eye-view, fixed jaw versus following the trailing MLC leaf, and a 2 Gy mean dose objective for healthy brain versus no low dose objective. Limiting the normal brain mean dose in the optimization objective function significantly reduced the low dose spill into the normal brain without changing target coverage. Jaw tracking and appropriate selection of collimator also reduced the low dose volume, but to a lesser extent. To reduce low dose spill into normal brain for single isocenter VMAT radiosurgery of multiple targets, it is important to incorporate a limit on low dose spill into the objective function. This study has implications beyond single-isocenter VMAT radiosurgery. When comparing different inverse-planned treatment techniques, metrics that are important for evaluation of plan quality must be included the objective function.

Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets

This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source size selections (0.50 mm, 0.75 mm, 1.00 mm, 1.25 mm, and 1.50 mm). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was varied in this analysis (three DLG values were tested for each scenario). We also tested two MLC leaf designs (standard and high‐definition MLC) and two delivery types for intracranial SRS (volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and dynamic conformal arc [DCA]). Thus, a total of 10 VMAT plans and 10 DCA plans were tested for each machine type (TrueBeam [standard MLC] and Edge [high‐definition MLC]). Each plan was mapped to a solid water phantom and dose was calculated with each iteration of source size and DLG value (15 total dose calculations for each plan). To measure the dose, Gafchromic film was placed in the coronal plane of the solid water phantom at isocenter. The phantom was localized via on‐board CBCT and the plans were delivered at planned gantry, collimator, and couch angles. The planned and measured film dose was compared using Gamma (3.0%, 0.3 mm) criteria. The vendor‐recommended 1.00 mm source size was suitable for TrueBeam planning (both VMAT and DCA planning) and Edge DCA planning. However, for Edge VMAT planning, the 0.50 mm source size yielded the highest passing rates. The difference in dose calculation among the source size variations manifested primarily in two regions of the dose calculation: (1) the shoulder of the high‐dose region, and (2) for small targets (volume ≤ 0.30 cc), in the central portion of the high‐dose region. Selection of a larger than optimal source size can result in increased blurring of the shoulder for all target volume sizes tested, and can result in central axis dose discrepancies in excess of 10% for target volumes sizes ≤ 0.30 cc. Our results indicate a need for evaluation of the source size when AcurosXB is used to model intracranial SRS delivery, and our methods represent a feasible process for many clinics to perform tuning of the AcurosXB source size parameter.