Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery

Dose conformity and falloff in single-lesion intracranial SRS with DCA and VMAT methods

BACKGROUND

Intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) aims at achieving highly conformal dose distribution and, at the same time, attaining rapid dose falloff outside the treatment target. SRS is performed using different techniques including dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

PURPOSE

In this study, we compare dose conformity and falloff in DCA and VMAT plans for SRS with a single target.

METHODS

To compare dose conformity in SRS plans, we employ a novel conformity indexC I d e x p $C{I}_{{d}_{exp}}$ , RTOG conformity index (C I R T O G $C{I}_{RTOG}$ ), and Riet-Paddick conformity index (C I R P $C{I}_{RP}$ ). In addition, we use indicesR 50 % $R50\% $ ,V 10 G y ${V}_{10Gy}$ , andV 12 G y ${V}_{12Gy}$ to evaluate dose falloff. For each of the considered 118 cases of SRS, two plans were created using DCA and VMAT. A two-tailed Student's t-test was used to evaluate the difference between the employed indices for the DCA and VMAT plans.

RESULTS

The studied VMAT plans were characterized by higher dose conformity than the DCA plans. The differences between the conformity indices for the DCA plans and VMAT plans were statistically significant. The DCA plans had a smaller number of monitor units (MUs) and smaller indices R50%, V10 Gy, and V12 Gy than the VMAT plans. However, the differences between R50%, V10 Gy, and V12 Gy for the DCA and VMAT plans were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the studied VMAT plans had higher dose conformity, they also had larger MUs than the DCA plans. In terms of dose falloff characterized by parameters R50%, V10 Gy, and V12 Gy, DCA serves as a reasonable alternative to VMAT in the case of a single brain metastasis.

Comparative study of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for treating single brain metastases: A retrospective analysis of dosimetric and clinical outcomes

Background and purpose

Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is commonly used to treat brain metastases (BMs). This retrospective study compared two SRT techniques, dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for single BM treatments.

Material and methods

Data of patients treated between January 2010 and June 2020 were considered. Patients with multiple BMs, resected BMs, reirradiation, whole-brain radiation therapy and brainstem metastases were excluded. We focused our analysis on 97 patients who received 23.1 Gy in three fractions. Acute toxicities and follow-up outcomes were recorded. Dosimetric data were analyzed in two subgroups (PTV ≤ 10 cc and PTV > 10 cc).

Results

DCAT and VMAT were used in 70 (72.2 %) and 27 (27.8 %) patients, respectively. Acute toxicities were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.259), and no difference was detected in the incidence rate of radionecrosis, local recurrence and cerebral recurrence (p > 0.999, p > 0.999 and p = 0.682, respectively). PTV coverage was better with DCAT for small volumes (PTV ≤ 10 cc). Mean conformity index (CI) was significantly higher with VMAT and mean gradient index (GI) was significantly lower with DCAT whatever volume subgroups (p < 0.001). DCAT had more heterogeneous plans and VMAT required more monitor units. DCAT resulted in reduced low and intermediate doses, whereas VMAT led to decreased high doses.

Conclusion

DCAT and VMAT are two effective and safe SRT techniques for BMs treatment. In the era of re-irradiation, it is important to reduce the doses delivered to healthy tissues. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy of Single Brain Metastases: A Literature Review of Dosimetric Studies

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) plays a major role in treating brain metastases (BMs) and can be delivered using various equipment and techniques. This review aims to identify the dosimetric factors of each technique to determine whether one should be preferred over another for single BMs treatment. A systematic literature review on articles published between January 2015 and January 2022 was conducted using the MEDLINE and ScienceDirect databases, following the PRISMA methodology, using the keywords "dosimetric comparison" and "brain metastases". The included articles compared two or more SRT techniques for treating single BM and considered at least two parameters among: conformity (CI), homogeneity (HI) and gradient (GI) indexes, delivery treatment time, and dose-volume of normal brain tissue. Eleven studies were analyzed. The heterogeneous lesions along with the different definitions of dosimetric indexes rendered the studied comparison almost unattainable. Gamma Knife (GK) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provide better CI and GI and ensure the sparing of healthy tissue. To conclude, it is crucial to optimize dosimetric indexes to minimize radiation exposure to healthy tissue, particularly in cases of reirradiation. Consequently, there is a need for future well-designed studies to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate SRT technique based on the treated BMs' characteristics.

SN, Tiwari R, Narayanan GS, Vishwanathan B. The Optimal Choice of Technique for Stereotactic Radiosurgery—A LINAC-Based Dosimetric Study between DCA, DCA-SSO, DCA-SSO-VDR, and VMAT

Introduction Advanced radiation therapy delivery techniques require greater understanding of various planning sequences and methods. The aim of this study is to determine a class solution that finds the best possible technique to deliver for stereotactic radiosurgery between dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using various options such as DCA, DCA + SSO (segment shape optimization), and DCA + SSO + VDR (variable dose rate) using noncoplanar beam arrangement and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using coplanar beams.

Materials and Methods In this dosimetric study, 11 brain cases were retrospectively planned for various techniques and analyzed for the Paddick conformity index (CI), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group homogeneity index (HI), Paddick gradient index (GI), treatment time in terms of monitor units (MU) and normal brain dose (V12Gy). The paired t-test was performed to know the statistical significance between the techniques.

Results In terms of CI, GI, and control of the normal brain dose, the VMAT plan was superior to other techniques. But, HI was found to be better with DCA. Above all, VMAT delivered higher MU than any other technique. The p-values between DCA + SSO and DCA, DCA + SSO + VDR and DCA + SSO, and VMAT and DCA + SSO + VDR are as follows: CI: 0.0004, 0.015, and 0.03; GI: 0.03, 0.33, and 0.29; HI: 0.008, 0.04, and 0.06; V12 Gy of normal brain: 0.1, 0.01, 0.38. VMAT requires approximately 41 ± 17% more MU than DCA + SSO + VDR.

Conclusion VMAT using coplanar beams is preferable among all the techniques, considering the dosimetric parameters studied. If VMAT is not available in the facility, DCA + SSO + VDR technique using non coplanar beams can be used to deliver SRS treatment.

Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans

Purpose

To study the impact of systematic MLC leaf positional uncertainties (stemming from mechanical inaccuracies or sub‐optimal MLC modeling) on the quality of intracranial single‐isocenter multi‐target VMAT‐SRS treatment plans. An estimation of appropriate tolerance levels is attempted.

Methods

Five patients, with three to four metastases and at least one target lying in close proximity to organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were included in this study. A single‐isocenter multi‐arc VMAT plan per patient was prepared, which served as the reference for dosimetric impact evaluation. A range of leaf offsets was introduced (±0.03 mm up to ±0.30 mm defined at the MLC plane) to both leaf banks, by varying the leaf offset MLC modeling parameter in Monaco for all the prepared plans, in order to simulate projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm up to ±0.94 mm at the isocenter plane, respectively. For all offsets simulated and cases studied, dose distributions were re‐calculated and compared with the corresponding reference ones. An experimental dosimetric procedure using the SRS mapCHECK diode array was also performed to support the simulation study results and investigate its suitability to detect small systematic leaf positional errors.

Results

Projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm were well‐tolerated with respect to both target dosimetry and OAR‐sparing. A linear relationship was found between D_95% percentage change and projected leaf offset (slope: 12%/mm). Impact of projected offset on target dosimetry was strongly associated with target volume. In two cases, plans that could be considered potentially clinically unacceptable (i.e., clinical dose constraint violation) were obtained even for projected offsets as small as 0.19 mm. The performed experimental dosimetry check can detect potential small systematic leaf errors.

Conclusions

Plan quality indices and dose–volume metrics are very sensitive to systematic sub‐millimeter leaf positional inaccuracies, projected at the isocenter plane. Acceptable and tolerance levels in systematic MLC uncertainties need to be tailored to VMAT‐SRS spatial and dosimetric accuracy requirements.

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

Purpose:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Intra‐fractional motion error during HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery on patients with brain metastases: Comparison of open and full‐face clamshell‐style immobilization devices

Purpose

To compare the intrafractional motion error (IME) during stereotactic irradiation (STI) in patients with brain metastases immobilized using open‐ (Encompass) and full‐face (DSPS) clamshell‐style immobilization devices.

Methods

Encompass (38 patients) and DSPS (38 patients) were used for patient immobilization, and HyperArc plans with three to four non‐coplanar beams were generated to deliver 25 to 35 Gy in three to five fractions. Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed on patients before and after the treatment. Moreover, the difference in patient position between the two CBCT images was considered as the IME. The margins to compensate for IME were calculated using the van Herk margin formula.

Results

For Encompass, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.1, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior–posterior, superior–inferior, and left–right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were −0.1, 0.0, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. For DSPS, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.2, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior–posterior, superior–inferior, and left–right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were −0.1, −0.1, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the IME of the two immobilization systems except in the anterior–posterior direction (p = 0.02). Moreover, no statistically significant correlation was observed between three‐dimensional IME and treatment time. The margin compensation for IME was less than 1 mm for both immobilization devices.

Conclusions

The IME during STI using open‐ and full‐face clamshell‐style immobilization devices is approximately equal considering the adequate accuracy in patient positioning.

Dosimetric comparison of mDCAT and VMAT techniques according to 6MV-FFF and 10MV-FFF energies in patients with single adrenal metastasis

OBJECTIVE

To compare dosimetric and radiobiological terms of modified dynamic conformal arc therapy (mDCAT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques using different flattening-filter free (FFF) energies in patients with single adrenal metastasis.

METHODS

In this study, plans were prepared for 10 patients drawing on the mDCAT and VMAT techniques with 6MV-FFF and 10MV-FFF energies. Target volume doses, biological effective doses (BED), quality indices, Monitor Unit (MU), number of segments, beam-on time and critical organ doses were compared in the plans.

RESULTS

Plans with the significantly lower gradient index (GI) and conformity index (CI) values were obtained with 6MV-FFF energy VMAT planning (p < 0.05). The higher values were obtained for dose to 95% of internal target volume (ITVD95), ITVD95-BED10 with 10MV-FFF energy VMAT planning, whereas lower results were obtained for high dose spillage (HDS%) values (p < 0,05). With 10MV-FFF energy, HDS% values were 21.1% lower in VMAT plans and 5.6% lower in mDCAT plans compared to 6MV-FFF energy. Plans with approximately 50% fewer segments were obtained in mDCAT plans than VMAT plans (p < 0,05). Beam-on time values with mDCAT was 1.84 times lower when 6MV-FFF energies were analyzed, and 2.11 times lower when 10MV-FFF was analyzed (p < 0,05). Additionally, when 6MV-FFF and 10MV-FFF energies were examined, MU values with mDCAT were 2.1 and 2.5 times lower (p < 0,05). In general, the smaller the target volume size, the greater the differences between MU and beam-on time values mDCAT and VMAT.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results implied that VMAT enabled to offer significantly more conformal SBRT plans with steeper dose fall-off beyond the target volume for single adrenal metastasis than the mDCAT, which attained at the cost of significantly higher MU and beam-on times. Especially with 10MV-FFF energy mDCAT plans, low-dose-bath zones can be reduced, and shorter-term treatments can be implemented with large segments. In adrenal gland SBRT, higher effective doses can be achieved with the right energy and technique, critical organ doses can be reduced, thus increasing the possibility of local control of the tumor with low toxicity.

Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis

In the delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) by linear accelerator (LINAC), dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) with non-coplanar beams is conventionally used. However, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve target conformity, thereby decreasing the dose to organs at risk by inversed planning methods, but few studies have directly compared DCAT and VMAT with and without non-coplanar beams in patients with single brain metastasis. We therefore conducted a planning study to compare the dose distribution in DCAT, VMAT using only a coplanar arc (CoVMAT) and VMAT with non-coplanar arcs (NcVMAT) in the treatment of single brain metastasis. DCAT, CoVMAT and NcVMAT plans were created for 15 patients. The three modalities were compared in terms of target conformity, target coverage, the dose to normal brain tissue, monitor units (MUs) and beam-on time. Both conformity indices (RTOG-CI and IP-CI) as well as the D98% of the gross target volume (GTV) were significantly better in the NcVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Comparisons of the doses to normal brain tissue revealed that the V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy were significantly smaller in the NcVMAT plans than in the plans based on the other two modalities. The MUs of the DCAT and NcVMAT plans were larger than those of the CoVMAT plans, and the beam-on time was longer in the NcVMAT and CoVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Compared to the CoVMAT and DCAT plans, NcVMAT plans significantly improved target conformity and reduced the doses to normal brain tissue at V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy.

Simultaneous stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arc therapy: a prospective monocentric registry trial

BACKGROUND

Single-isocenter dynamic conformal arc (SIDCA) therapy is a technically efficient way of delivering stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to multiple metastases simultaneously. This study reports on the safety and feasibility of linear accelerator (LINAC) based SRS with SIDCA for patients with multiple brain metastases.

METHODS

All patients who received SRS with this technique between November 2017 and June 2019 within a prospective registry trial were included. The patients were irradiated with a dedicated planning tool for multiple brain metastases using a LINAC with a 5 mm multileaf collimator. Follow-up was performed every 3 months, including clinical and radiological examination with cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These early data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 65 patients with 254 lesions (range 2-12) were included in this analysis. Median beam-on time was 23 min. The median follow-up at the time of analysis was 13 months (95% CI 11.1-14.9). Median overall survival and median intracranial progression-free survival was 15 months (95% CI 7.7-22.3) and 7 months (95% CI 3.9-10.0), respectively. Intracranial and local control after 1 year was 64.6 and 97.5%, respectively. During follow-up, CTCAE grade I adverse effects (AE) were experienced by 29 patients (44.6%; 18 of them therapy related, 27.7%), CTCAE grade II AEs by four patients (6.2%; one of them therapy related, 1.5%), and CTCAE grade III by three patients (4.6%; none of them therapy related). Two lesions (0.8%) in two patients (3.1%) were histopathologically proven to be radiation necrosis.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous SRS using SIDCA seems to be a feasible and safe treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases.

Transition From Manual to Automated Planning and Delivery of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Clinical, Dosimetric, and Quality Assurance Results

PURPOSE

Properly planned single isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiosurgery plans exhibit high quality and efficiency. We report here the largest clinical experience to date, to our knowledge, comparing manual planning with a new automated platform designed to standardize and simplify radiosurgery planning and delivery processes.

METHODS

We treated 693 patients with single isocenter VMAT radiosurgical plans generated by either our conventional manual (mVMAT) or a recently implemented automated (HyperArc^TM) technique. All plans targeted the gross tumor volume without margin. Radiochromic film was used for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). We evaluated local control and toxicity data for a subgroup of 107 patients having 377 metastatic tumors that were treated with HyperArc.

RESULTS

The median Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) conformity index was 1.14 and was not different between the 2 techniques. The median Paddick gradient index was 5.42 for HyperArc versus 7.09 for mVMAT (P < .001). The median mean brain doses were 4.6% and 5.1% for HyperArc and mVMAT, respectively (P = .04). The PSQA for both techniques met clinical criteria, but 97% of the HyperArc plans satisfied the gamma tolerance limit recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 218, compared with 94% of the mVMAT plans (P = .02). The median treatment-planning times were not significantly different. The median treatment times were 10.5 and 11.4 minutes for HyperArc and mVMAT, respectively (P < .001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local control was 90.1% at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

HyperArc produces high-quality radiosurgical plans that are at least as good as mVMAT plans created by an expert manual planner with easier planning and more efficient delivery workflow. A less experienced planner can produce very high-quality radiosurgical plans even for patients with more than 10 targets. The use of a single-isocenter technique for multiple targets with no PTV margin did not compromise clinical outcomes, and 1-year local control for treated targets remained congruent with historical series.

A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments

The purpose of this study is to compare patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) results between two dimensional (2D) diode (SRS MapCHECK^®) and 3D diode (ArcCHECK^®) arrays. Twenty-eight intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and 26 lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) clinical plans with a single lesion were selected and categorized into 4 groups: 20 SRS dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) plans (Group A), 8 SRS volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans (Group B), 6 SBRT DCAT plans (Group C) and 20 SBRT VMAT plans (Group D). An individual field of each plan was delivered on SRS MapCHECK and ArcCHECK and QA analysis was performed using 4 gamma criteria of dose difference/distance-to-agreement of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm. Statistical analysis was performed to compare PSQA results between the 2 QA devices. For all 4 groups and all 4 gamma criteria, average gamma passing rates were higher with SRS MapCHECK.

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

Purpose

The aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.

Material

Twenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (D_max%), mean dose of PTV (D_mean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D_2cm%), total monitor units (MU's), gradient index R_50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD), were compared.

Results

Significant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D_2cm%, R_50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.

Conclusions

For liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.

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.

Dosimetric impact of rotational errors on the quality of VMAT-SRS for multiple brain metastases: Comparison between single- and two-isocenter treatment planning techniques

Purpose

In the absence of a 6D couch and/or assuming considerable intrafractional patient motion, rotational errors could affect target coverage and OAR‐sparing especially in multiple metastases VMAT‐SRS cranial cases, which often involve the concurrent irradiation of off‐axis targets. This work aims to study the dosimetric impact of rotational errors in such applications, under a comparative perspective between the single‐ and two‐isocenter treatment techniques.

Methods

Ten patients (36 metastases) were included in this study. Challenging cases were only considered, with several targets lying in close proximity to OARs. Two multiarc VMAT plans per patient were prepared, involving one and two isocenters, serving as the reference plans. Different degrees of angular offsets at various orientations were introduced, simulating rotational errors. Resulting dose distributions were evaluated and compared using commonly employed dose‐volume and plan quality indices.

Results

For single‐isocenter plans and 1^⁰ rotations, plan quality indices, such as coverage, conformity index and D_95%, deteriorated significantly (>5%) for distant targets from the isocenter (at> 4–6 cm). Contrarily, for two‐isocenter plans, target distances to nearest isocenter were always shorter (≤4 cm), and, consequently, 1^⁰ errors were well‐tolerated. In the most extreme case considered (2^⁰ around all axes) conformity index deteriorated by on‐average 7.2%/cm of distance to isocenter, if one isocenter is used, and 2.6%/cm, for plans involving two isocenters. The effect is, however, strongly associated with target volume. Regarding OARs, for single‐isocenter plans, significant increase (up to 63%) in D_max and D_0.02cc values was observed for any angle of rotation. Plans that could be considered clinically unacceptable were obtained even for the smallest angle considered, although rarer for the two‐isocenter planning approach.

Conclusion

Limiting the lesion‐to‐isocenter distance to ≤4 cm by introducing additional isocenter(s) appears to partly mitigate severe target underdosage, especially for smaller target sizes. If OAR‐sparing is also a concern, more stringent rotational error tolerances apply.

A simple knowledge-based tool for stereotactic radiosurgery pre-planning

We studied the dosimetry of single‐isocenter treatment plans generated to treat a solitary intracranial lesion using linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). A common metric for evaluating SRS plan quality is the volume of normal brain tissue irradiated by a dose of at least 12 Gy (V12), which is important because multiple studies have shown a strong correlation between V12 and incidence of radiation necrosis. Unrealistic expectations for values of V12 can lead to wasted planning time. We present a model that estimates V12 without having to construct a full treatment plan. This model was derived by retrospectively analyzing 50 SRS treatment plans, each clinically approved for delivery using circular collimator cone arc therapy (CAT). Each case was re‐planned for delivery via dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT), and then scaling arguments were used to extend dosimetric data to account for different prescription dose (PD) values (15, 18, 21, or 24 Gy). We determined a phenomenological expression for the total volume receiving at least 12 Gy (TV12) as a function of both planning target volume (PTV) and PD: TV12/1cc=n∗PD/1Gy+d∗PTV/1cca∗PD/1Gyc, where a,c,n,d are fit parameters, and a separate set of values is determined for each plan type. In addition, we generated a sequence of plots to clarify how the relationship between conformity index (CI) and TV12 depends on plan type (CAT vs DCAT), PTV, and PD. These results can be used to suggest realistic plan parameters and planning goals before the start of treatment planning. In the absence of access to more sophisticated pre‐planning tools, this model can be locally generated and implemented at relatively low cost with respect to time, money, and expertise.

Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C-arm linear accelerator based plans

The incidence of brain metastases is increasing and various treatment modalities exist for brain metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife) for multiple brain metastases compared with C‐arm linear accelerator (linac) based plans. C‐arm linac based plans included intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non‐coplanar VMAT with 1, 3 and 5 non‐coplanar arcs, respectively (NC1, NC3 and NC5). For 20 patients, six plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in three fractions were generated. The gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), maximum dose (D_max) of organs at risk (OARs), normal brain tissue volume (V_3 Gy–V_24 Gy), monitor units (MUs) and beam on time (BT) were evaluated. The GI of CyberKnife plans (3.60 ± 0.70) was lower than IMRT (6.21 ± 2.26, P < 0.05), VMAT (6.04 ± 1.93, P < 0.05), NC1 (5.16 ± 1.71, P < 0.05), NC3 (5.02 ± 1.59, P < 0.05) and NC5 (5.03 ± 1.72, P < 0.05). The CI of the VMAT plans (both coplanar and non‐coplanar) was larger than IMRT and CK plans. The D_max for most OARs of the CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, although some differences were not statistically significant. The normal brain tissue volume of CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, and the normal brain tissue volume of non‐coplanar VMAT plans was lower than IMRT and VMAT plans at high‐moderate dose level. However, the MUs and BT of CyberKnife plans was more than C‐arm linac based plans. CyberKnife plan was better than C‐arm linac based plans in protecting normal brain tissue and OARs for patients with multiple brain metastases. C‐arm linac based plan with non‐coplanar arc provided better protection of normal brain tissue than coplanar plan. However, the BT of CyberKnife plan was longer than C‐arm linac based plans.

Single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases: dosimetric comparison of VMAT and a dedicated DCAT planning tool

Background

In this dosimetric study, a dedicated planning tool for single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases using dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) was compared to standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods

Twenty patients with a total of 66 lesions who were treated with the DCAT tool were included in this study. Single fraction doses of 15–20 Gy were prescribed to each lesion. Patients were re-planned using non-coplanar VMAT. Number of monitor units as well as V_4Gy, V_5Gy and V_8Gy were extracted for every plan. Using a density-based clustering algorithm, V_10Gy and V_12Gy and the volume receiving half of the prescribed dose were extracted for every lesion. Gradient indices and conformity indices were calculated. The correlation of the target sphericity, a measure of how closely the shape of the target PTV resembles a sphere, to the difference in V_10Gy and V_12Gy between the two techniques was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Results

The automated DCAT planning tool performed significantly better in terms of all investigated metrics (p < 0.05), in particular healthy brain sparing (V_10Gy: median 3.2 cm³ vs. 4.9 cm³), gradient indices (median 5.99 vs. 7.17) and number of monitor units (median 4569 vs. 5840 MU). Differences in conformity indices were minimal (median 0.75 vs. 0.73) but still significant (p < 0.05). A moderate correlation between PTV sphericity and the difference of V_10Gy and V_12Gy between the two techniques was found (Spearman’s rho = 0.27 and 0.30 for V_10Gy and V_12Gy, respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The dedicated DCAT planning tool performed better than VMAT in terms of healthy brain sparing and treatment efficiency, in particular for nearly spherical lesions. In contrast, VMAT can be superior in cases with irregularly shaped lesions.

Combination of IFITM1 knockdown and radiotherapy inhibits the growth of oral cancer

This research aimed to analyze the effect of IFITM1 on the radioresistance of oral neoplasm. Using a multi‐group heat map from GSE9716 analysis of the GEO database, IFITM1 was determined to be a relevant radioresistance gene. The TCGA database was analyzed before the expression of IFITM1 was analyzed. IFITM1 expression was quantified by quantitative RT‐PCR and immunohistochemistry in 19 paired oral neoplasm cases. The effects of time and dose of radiation on IFITM1 expression level in CAL27 and TSCC1 cell lines were tested by quantitative RT‐PCR. Oral neoplasm cells were transfected with siRNA after radiotherapy to disturb IFITM1 expression. After this, the survival rates, cell apoptosis, caspase‐3 viability, expression and γ‐H2AX were detected using colony formation, flow cytometry, western blot and immunofluorescence, respectively. Western blot was used for STAT1/2/3/p21‐related protein and phosphorylation changes. Finally, an in vivo nude mice tumor model was established to verify the effect of IFITM1 on oral neoplasm cells radioresistance. Through microarray analysis, the head and neck neoplasm radioresistance‐related gene IFITM1 was found to be overexpressed. IFITM1 overexpression was verified not only using the TCGA database but also in 19 paired cases of oral neoplasm tissues and cells. With increases of dose and time of radiation, the expression of IFITM1 was increased in CAL27 and TSCC1 cell lines. Furthermore, si‐IFITM1 may restrain cell proliferation, DNA damage and cell apoptosis in oral neoplasm cell lines. Finally, pSTAT1/2/p21 was found to be upregulated while pSTAT3/p‐p21 was downregulated due to IFITM1 inhibition after radiotherapy. The evidence suggested that IFITM1 in combination with radiotherapy can inhibit oral neoplasm cells.

Evaluations of the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6D ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography used with the imaging guidance system Novalis-Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery

The objective of this study was to evaluate the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6 degree-of-freedom (6D) ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) used with the imaging guidance system Novalis Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. We included 107 consecutive patients for whom white stereotactic head frame masks (R408; Clarity Medical Products, Newark, OH) were used to fix the head during intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery, between August 2012 and July 2016. The patients were immobilized in the same state for both the verification image using 6D ExacTrac and online 3D CBCT. In addition, after radiation treatment, registration between the computed tomography simulation images and the CBCT images was performed with offline 6D fusion in an offline review. The root-mean-square of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and CBCT was <1.01 mm for online matching and <1.10 mm for offline matching. Furthermore, the root-mean-square of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and the CBCT were <0.82° for online matching and <0.95° for offline matching. It was concluded that while the discrepancies in residual setup errors between the ExacTrac 6D X-ray and the CBCT were minor, they should not be ignored.

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

PURPOSE

When treating large metastatic brain tumors with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), high dose conformity to target is difficult to achieve. Employing a modified planning target volume (mPTV) instead of the original PTV may be one way to improve the dose distribution in linear accelerator-based SRT using a dynamic conformal technique. In this study, we quantitatively analyzed the impact of a mPTV on dose distribution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four tumors with a maximum diameter of >2 cm were collected. For each tumor, two plans were created: one used a mPTV and the other did not. The mPTV was produced by shrinking or enlarging the original PTV according to the dose distribution in the original plan. The dose conformity was evaluated and compared between the plans using a two-sided paired t test.

RESULTS

The conformity index defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group was 1.34 ± 0.10 and 1.41 ± 0.13, and Paddick's conformity index was 0.75 ± 0.05 and 0.71 ± 0.06, for the plans with and without a mPTV, respectively. All of these improvements were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of a mPTV can improve target conformity when planning SRT for large metastatic brain tumors.