The variable ellipsoid modeling technique as a verification method for the treatment planning system of gamma knife radiosurgery

Validation of Gamma Knife Perfexion Dose Profile Distribution by a Modified Variable Ellipsoid Modeling Technique

OBJECTIVE

High precision and accuracy are expected in gamma knife radiosurgery treatment. Because of the requirement of clinically applying complex radiation and dose gradients together with a rapid radiation decline, a dedicated quality assurance program is required to maintain the radiation dosimetry and geometric accuracy and to reduce all associated risk factors. This study investigates the validity of Leksell Gamma plan (LGP)10.1.1 system of 5th generation Gamma Knife Perfexion as modified variable ellipsoid modeling technique (VEMT) method.

METHODS

To verify LGP10.1.1 system, we compare the treatment plan program system of the Gamma Knife Perfexion, that is, the LGP, with the calculated value of the proposed modified VEMT program. To verify a modified VEMT method, we compare the distributions of the dose of Gamma Knife Perfexion measured by Gafchromic EBT3 and EBT-XD films. For verification, the center of an 80 mm radius solid water phantom is placed in the center of all sectors positioned at 16 mm, 4 mm and 8 mm; that is, the dose distribution is similar to the method used in the x, y, and z directions by the VEMT. The dose distribution in the axial direction is compared and analyzed based on Full-Width-of-Half-Maximum (FWHM) evaluation.

RESULTS

The dose profile distribution was evaluated by FWHM, and it showed an average difference of 0.104 mm for the LGP value and 0.130 mm for the EBT-XD film.

CONCLUSION

The modified VEMT yielded consistent results in the two processes. The use of the modified VEMT as a verification tool can enable the system to stably test and operate the Gamma Knife Perfexion treatment planning system.

Two-year experience with the commercial Gamma Knife Check software

The Gamma Knife Check software is an FDA approved second check system for dose calculations in Gamma Knife radiosurgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the stability of the commercial software package as a tool for independent dose verification. The Gamma Knife Check software version 8.4 was commissioned for a Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion and a 4C unit at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in May 2012. Independent dose verifications were performed using this software for 319 radiosurgery cases on the Perfexion and 283 radiosurgery cases on the 4C units. The cases on each machine were divided into groups according to their diagnoses, and an averaged absolute percent dose difference for each group was calculated. The percentage dose difference for each treatment target was obtained as the relative difference between the Gamma Knife Check dose and the dose from the tissue maximum ratio algorithm (TMR 10) from the GammaPlan software version 10 at the reference point. For treatment plans with imaging skull definition, results obtained from the Gamma Knife Check software using the measurement‐based skull definition method are used for comparison. The collected dose difference data were also analyzed in terms of the distance from the treatment target to the skull, the number of treatment shots used for the target, and the gamma angles of the treatment shots. The averaged percent dose differences between the Gamma Knife Check software and the GammaPlan treatment planning system are 0.3%, 0.89%, 1.24%, 1.09%, 0.83%, 0.55%, 0.33%, and 1.49% for the trigeminal neuralgia, acoustic neuroma, arteriovenous malformation (AVM), meningioma, pituitary adenoma, glioma, functional disorders, and metastasis cases on the Perfexion unit. The corresponding averaged percent dose differences for the 4C unit are 0.33%, 1.2%, 2.78% 1.99%, 1.4%, 1.92%, 0.62%, and 1.51%, respectively. The dose difference is, in general, larger for treatment targets in the peripheral regions of the skull owing to the difference in the numerical methods used for skull shape simulation in the GammaPlan and the Gamma Knife Check software. Larger than 5% dose differences were observed on both machines for certain targets close to patient skull surface and for certain targets in the lower half of the brain on the Perfexion, especially when shots with 70 and/or 110 gamma angles are used. Out of the 1065 treatment targets studied, a 5% cutoff criterion cannot always be met for the dose differences between the studied versions of the Gamma Knife Check software and the planning system for 40 treatment targets.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Clinical Application of Gamma Knife Dose Verification Method in Multiple Brain Tumors : Modified Variable Ellipsoid Modeling Technique

Objective

The Leksell Gamma Knife® (LGK) is based on a single-fraction high dose treatment strategy. Therefore, independent verification of the Leksell GammaPlan® (LGP) is important for ensuring patient safety and minimizing the risk of treatment errors. Although several verification techniques have been previously developed and reported, no method has ever been tested statistically on multiple LGK target treatments. The purpose of this study was to perform and to evaluate the accuracy of a verification method (modified variable ellipsoid modeling technique, MVEMT) for multiple target treatments.

Methods

A total of 500 locations in 10 consecutive patients with multiple brain tumor targets were included in this study. We compared the data from an LGP planning system and MVEMT in terms of dose at random points, maximal dose points, and target volumes. All data was analyzed by t-test and the Bland-Altman plot, which are statistical methods used to compare two different measurement techniques.

Results

No statistical difference in dose at the 500 random points was observed between LGP and MVEMT. Differences in maximal dose ranged from -2.4% to 6.1%. An average distance of 1.6 mm between the maximal dose points was observed when comparing the two methods.

Conclusion

Statistical analyses demonstrated that MVEMT was in excellent agreement with LGP when planning for radiosurgery involving multiple target treatments. MVEMT is a useful, independent tool for planning multiple target treatment that provides statistically identical data to that produced by LGP. Findings from the present study indicate that MVEMT can be used as a reference dose verification system for multiple tumors.

Radiation-induced intratumoral necrosis and peritumoral edema after gamma knife radiosurgery for intracranial meningiomas

Objective

To study the clinical significance and relevant factors of radiation-induced intratumoral necrosis (RIN) and peritumoral edema (PTE) after Gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS) for intracranial meningiomas.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 64 patients who underwent GKRS for intracranial meningioma. The mean lesion volume was 4.9 cc (range, 0.3-20), and the mean prescription dose of 13.4 Gy (range, 11-18) was delivered to the mean 49.9% (range, 45-50) isodose line. RIN was defined as newly developed or enlarged intratumoral necrosis after GKRS.

Results

RIN and new development or aggravation of PTE were observed in 21 (32.8%) and 18 (28.1%) cases of meningioma, respectively during the median follow-up duration of 19.9±1.0 months. Among various factors, maximum dose (>25 Gy) and target volume (>4.5 cc) were significantly related to RIN, and RIN and maximum dose (>24 Gy) were significantly related to the development or aggravation of PTE. In 21 meningiomas with development of RIN after GKRS, there was no significant change of the tumor volume itself between the times of GKRS and RIN. However, the PTE volume increased significantly compared to that at the time of GKRS (p=0.013). The median interval to RIN after GKRS was 6.5±0.4 months and the median interval to new or aggravated PTE was 7.0±0.7 months.

Conclusion

A close observation is required for meningiomas treated with a maximum dose >24 Gy and showing RIN after GKRS, since following or accompanying PTE may deteriorate neurological conditions especially when the location involves adjacent critical structures.