Evaluation of Hybrid Arc and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Plans for Fractionated Stereotactic Intracranial Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The study was aimed to compare hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of brain tumors. METHODS: Treatment plans of 22 patients were studied. Hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were generated using Brainlab iPlanDose and Varian Eclipse treatment planning systems, respectively, with 6 MV photon beams on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Palo Alto, CA). Prescription dose was 54 Gy. The fractionation was 1.8 Gy per fraction and 30 fractions in total, or 2 Gy per fraction and 27 fractions in total. Planning target volume ranged from 2.4 to 28.6 cm RESULTS: Conformity indexes of hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are 1.10 ± 0.10 and 1.14 ± 0.07, respectively ( P = .4); gradient indexes are 5.02 ± 1.20 and 5.64 ± 1.28, respectively ( P = .0001); homogeneity indexes are 1.02 ± 0.01 and 1.05 ± 0.01, respectively ( P = .0001); brainstem maximum doses are 53.87 ± 1.63 Gy and 54.06 ± 3.17 Gy, respectively ( P = .1); and optic chiasm maximum doses are 53.86 ± 1.28 Gy and 53.95 ± 1.81, respectively ( P = .4). The monitor unit efficiencies of hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are 2.57 ± 0.25 MU/cGy and 2.68 ± 0.24 MU/cGy, respectively ( P = .2). The differences of conformity index, gradient index, and homogeneity index between hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are small: 0.08 ± 0.05, 0.65 ± 0.46, and 0.02 ± 0.01, respectively. The maximum doses in organs at risks are similar between hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans. Hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans, which have similar monitor unit efficiencies, present similar dosimetric results in the fractionated intracranial radiotherapy

Comparison of Online 6 Degree-of-Freedom Image Registration of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Intracranial Radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: The study was aimed to compare online 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography and BrainLab ExacTrac X-ray imaging systems for intracranial radiosurgery. METHODS: Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom and was designed to evaluate isocenter location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters at various locations representing clinical treatment sites were selected in the phantom. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included 34 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken at each patient\u27s treatment position. The 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations were performed on cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac were compared. RESULTS: In the phantom study, the average residual error differences (absolute values) between cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac image registrations were 0.17 ± 0.11 mm, 0.36 ± 0.20 mm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.34° ± 0.08°, 0.13° ± 0.09°, and 0.12° ± 0.10°, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions were 0.20 ± 0.16 mm, 0.30 ± 0.18 mm, 0.21 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.40°± 0.16°, 0.17° ± 0.13°, and 0.20° ± 0.14°, respectively. Overall, the average residual error differences wer

Dosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcsDosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcs.

An automatic brain-metastases planning (ABMP) software has been installed in our institution. It is dedicated for treating multiple brain metastases with radiosurgery on linear accelerators (linacs) using a single-setup isocenter with noncoplanar dynamic conformal arcs. This study is to validate the calculated absolute dose and dose distribution of ABMP. Three types of measurements were performed to validate the planning software: 1, dual micro ion chambers were used with an acrylic phantom to measure the absolute dose; 2, a 3D cylindrical phantom with dual diode array was used to evaluate 2D dose distribution and point dose for smaller targets; and 3, a 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific phantom filled with polymer gels was used to evaluate the accuracy of 3D dose distribution and radia-tion delivery. Micro chamber measurement of two targets (volumes of 1.2 cc and 0.9 cc, respectively) showed that the percentage differences of the absolute dose at both targets were less than 1%. Averaged GI passing rate of five different plans measured with the diode array phantom was above 98%, using criteria of 3% dose difference, 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA), and 10% low-dose threshold. 3D gel phantom measurement results demonstrated a 3D displacement of nine targets of 0.7 ± 0.4 mm (range 0.2 ~ 1.1 mm). The averaged two-dimensional (2D) GI passing rate for several region of interests (ROI) on axial slices that encompass each one of the nine targets was above 98% (5% dose difference, 2 mm DTA, and 10% low-dose threshold). Measured D95, the minimum dose that covers 95% of the target volume, of the nine targets was 0.7% less than the calculated D95. Three different types of dosimetric verification methods were used and proved the dose calculation of the new automatic brain metastases planning (ABMP) software was clinical acceptable. The 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific gel phantom test also served as an end-to-end test for validating not only the dose calculation, but the treatment delivery accuracy as well

Dosimetric Performance and Planning/Delivery Efficiency of a Dual-Layer Stacked and Staggered MLC on Treating Multiple Small Targets: A Planning Study Based on Single-Isocenter Multi-Target Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) to Brain Metastases.

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric performance and planning/delivery efficiency of a dual-layer MLC system for treating multiple brain metastases with a single isocenter. Materials and Methods: 10 patients each with 6-10 targets with volumes from 0.11 to 8.57 cc, and prescription doses from 15 to 24 Gy, were retrospectively studied. Halcyon has only coplanar delivery mode. Halcyon V1 MLC modulates only with the lower layer at 1 cm resolution, whereas V2 MLC modulates with both layers at an effective resolution of 0.5 cm. For each patient five plans were compared varying MLC and beam arrangements: the clinical plan using multi-aperture dynamic conformal arc (DCA) and non-coplanar arcs, Halcyon-V1 using coplanar-VMAT, Halcyon-V2 using coplanar-VMAT, HDMLC-0.25 cm using coplanar-VMAT, and HDMLC-0.25 cm using non-coplanar-VMAT. All same-case plans were generated following the same planning protocol and normalization. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), V12Gy, V6Gy, V3Gy, and brain mean dose were compared. Results: All VMAT plans met clinical constraints for critical structures. For targets with diameter \u3c 1 cm, Halcyon plans showed inferior CI among all techniques. For targets with diameter \u3e1 cm, Halcyon VMAT plans had CI similar to non-coplanar VMAT plans, and better than non-coplanar clinical DCA plans. For GI, Halcyon MLC plans performed similarly to coplanar HDMLC plans and inferiorly compared to non-coplanar HDMLC plans. All coplanar VMAT plans (Halcyon MLC and HDMLC) and clinical DCA plans had similar V12Gy, but were inferior compared to non-coplanar VMAT plans. Halcyon plans had slightly reduced V3Gy and mean brain dose compared to HDMLC plans. The difference between Halcyon V1 and V2 is only significant in CI of tumors less than 1cm in diameter. Halcyon plans required longer optimization than Truebeam VMAT plans, but had similar delivery efficiency. Conclusion: For targets with diameter \u3e1 cm, Halcyon\u27s dual-layer stacked and staggered MLC is capable of producing similar dose conformity compared to HDMLC while reducing low dose spill to normal brain tissue. GI and V12Gy of Halcyon MLC plans were, in general, inferior to non-coplanar DCA or VMAT plans using HDMLC, likely due to coplanar geometry and wider MLC leaves. HDMLC maintained its advantage in CI for smaller targets with diameter \u3c1 cm. © 2019 Li, Irmen, Liu, Shi, Alonso-Basanta, Zou, Teo, Metz and Dong

Clinical Evaluation of an Auto-Segmentation Tool for Spine SBRT Treatment

Purpose: Spine SBRT target delineation is time-consuming due to the complex bone structure. Recently, Elements SmartBrush Spine (ESS) was developed by Brainlab to automatically generate a clinical target volume (CTV) based on gross tumor volume (GTV). The aim of this project is to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of ESS auto-segmentation. Methods: Twenty spine SBRT patients with 21 target sites treated at our institution were used for this retrospective comparison study. Planning CT/MRI images and physician-drawn GTVs were inputs for ESS. ESS can automatically segment the vertebra, split the vertebra into 6 sectors, and generate a CTV based on the GTV location, according to the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) Consensus guidelines. The auto-segmented CTV can be edited by including/excluding sectors of the vertebra, if necessary. The ESS-generated CTV contour was then compared to the clinically used CTV using qualitative and quantitative methods. The CTV contours were compared using visual assessment by the clinicians, relative volume differences (RVD), distance of center of mass (DCM), and three other common contour similarity measurements such as dice similarity coefficient (DICE), Hausdorff distance (HD), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95). Results: Qualitatively, the study showed that ESS can segment vertebra more accurately and consistently than humans at normal curvature conditions. The accuracy of CTV delineation can be improved significantly if the auto-segmentation is used as the first step. Conversely, ESS may mistakenly split or join different vertebrae when large curvatures in anatomy exist. In this study, human interactions were needed in 7 of 21 cases to generate the final CTVs by including/excluding sectors of the vertebra. In 90% of cases, the RVD were within ±15%. The RVD, DCM, DICE, HD, and HD95 for the 21 cases were 3% ± 12%, 1.9 ± 1.5 mm, 0.86 ± 0.06, 13.34 ± 7.47 mm, and 4.67 ± 2.21 mm, respectively. Conclusion: ESS can auto-segment a CTV quickly and accurately and has a good agreement with clinically used CTV. Inter-person variation and contouring time can be reduced with ESS. Physician editing is needed for some occasions. Our study supports the idea of using ESS as the first step for spine SBRT target delineation to improve the contouring consistency as well as to reduce the contouring time

Plan Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Radiosurgery to Multiple Brain Metastases: Non-Coplanar RapidArc vs. Gamma Knife.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the dosimetry and efficiency of two modern radiosurgery [stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)] modalities for multiple brain metastases [Gamma Knife (GK) and LINAC-based RapidArc/volumetric modulated arc therapy], with a special focus on the comparison of low-dose spread. METHODS: Six patients with three or four small brain metastases were used in this study. The size of targets varied from 0.1 to 10.5 cc. SRS doses were prescribed according to the size of lesions. SRS plans were made using both Gamma Knife(®) Perfexion and a single-isocenter, multiple non-coplanar RapidArc(®). Dosimetric parameters analyzed included RTOG conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), 12 Gy isodose volume (V 12Gy) for each target, and the dose spread (Dspread) for each plan. Dspread reflects SRS plan\u27s capability of confining radiation to within the local vicinity of the lesion and to not spread out to the surrounding normal brain tissues. Each plan has a dose (Dspread), such that once dose decreases below Dspread (on total tissue dose-volume histogram), isodose volume starts increasing dramatically. Dspread is defined as that dose when volume increase first exceeds 20 cc/0.1 Gy dose decrease. RESULTS: RapidArc SRS has smaller CI (1.19 ± 0.14 vs. 1.50 ± 0.16, p \u3c 0.001) and larger GI (4.77 ± 1.49 vs. 3.65 ± 0.98, p \u3c 0.01). V 12Gy results were comparable (2.73 ± 1.38 vs. 3.06 ± 2.20 cc, p = 0.58). Moderate to lower dose spread, V6, V4.5, and V3, were also equivalent. GK plans achieved better very low-dose spread (≤3 Gy) and also had slightly smaller Dspread, 1.9 vs. 2.5 Gy. Total treatment time for GK is estimated between 60 and 100 min. GK treatments are between 3 and 5 times longer compared to RapidArc treatment techniques. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric parameters reflecting prescription dose conformality (CI), dose fall off (GI), radiation necrosis indicator (V 12Gy), and dose spread (Dspread) were compared between GK SRS and RapidArc SRS for multi-mets. RapidArc plans have smaller CI but larger GI. V 12Gy are comparable. GK appears better at reducing only very low-dose spread (\u3c3 \u3eGy). The treatment time of RapidArc SRS is significantly reduced compared to GK SRS

Efficacy of Scalp-Sparing Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Approach in Reducing Scalp Radiation Dose for Patients with Glioblastoma: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND: Radiation is integral to the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM). However, radiation-induced scalp toxicity can negatively impact patients\u27 quality of life. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimizes the dose to organs at risk (OARs). We hypothesize that a scalp-sparing VMAT (SSV) approach can significantly reduce undesirable doses to the scalp without compromising the target dose. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of GBM patients who originally received radiation with non-SSV. We contoured the scalp as a 5 mm rind-like structure beneath the skin above the level of the foramen magnum. We replanned our patients using SSV techniques. We compared dosimetric data for the scalp, planning target volume (PTV), and select critical normal structures between non-SSV and SSV plans. RESULTS: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed GBMs were included in our study. All patients received 60 Gy in 30 fractions. 9 patients received it in a single course. The rest received 46 Gy in 23 fractions to an initial volume followed by 14 Gy in 7 fractions to a cone-down volume (split course). New VMAT plans were generated after adding the scalp as an OAR. The median scalp volume was 416 cm3 (363-468 cm3). The median reductions in scalp Dmin, Dmax, and Dmean were 43.5% (-100% to 0%), 2.8% (+13.4% to -24.9%), and 15.7% (+2.1% to -39.9%) respectively. Median reductions in scalp D20cc and D30 cc were 19.5% (-2.7% to -54.5%), and 19.0% (-5.3% to -39.5%) respectively. The median volumes of the scalp receiving 30 Gy, 40 Gy, and 50 Gy were reduced by 42.3% (-70.6% to -12.5%), 72% (-100% to -2.3%), and 92.4% (-100% to +5.4%) respectively. There were no significant differences in the doses delivered to the PTV, brainstem, optic nerves, and optic chiasm between SSV and non-SSV plans. CONCLUSIONS: SSV can significantly reduce scalp radiation dose without compromising target coverage or critical normal structure doses. This may translate into reduced acute and late radiation toxicity to the scalp. A prospective trial evaluating the clinical benefits of SSV is ongoing (NCT03251027)

Novel Frameless LINAC Radiosurgery Solution for Uveal Melanoma

INTRODUCTION: Radiation treatment has replaced enucleation as an organ-preservation treatment for patients with uveal melanoma (UM). We developed a novel non-invasive, frameless LINAC based solution for fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) treatment. METHODS: We designed and constructed the a stereotactic ocular localization box that can be attached and indexed to a stereotactic LINAC tabletop. It contains adjustable LED lights as a gaze focus point and CCD camera for monitoring of the patient\u27s eye position. The device also has 6 infrared spheres compatible with the ExacTRAC IGRT system. Treatment plans were developed using iPLAN Dose version 4.5, with conformal dynamic arcs and 6MV photon beam in flattening filter free mode, dosed to 50Gy in 5 fractions. During treatment, patients were instructed to stare at the light when a radiation beam is prepared and ready for delivery. Eye movement was tracked throughout treatment. Residual setup errors were recorded for evaluation. RESULTS: The stereotactic ocular localization box was 3D-printed with polylactic acid material and attached to the stereotactic LINAC tabletop. 10 patients were treated to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability and setup accuracy. Median treatment time for each arc is 17.3 ± 2.4 seconds (range: 13.8-23.4). After ExacTRAC setup, the residual setup errors are -0.1 ± 0.3 mm laterally, -0.1 ± 0.3 mm longitudinally, and 0 ± 0.2 mm vertically. The residue rotational errors are -0.1 ± 0.3 degree pitch, 0.1 ± 0.2 degree roll, and 0 ± 0.2 degree couch rotation. All patients received treatment successfully. CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a novel non-invasive frameless mask-based LINAC solution for SRS for uveal melanoma, or other ocular tumors. It is well tolerated with high set up accuracy. Future directions for this localization box would include a multi-center trial to assess the efficacy and reproducibility in the fabrication and execution of such a solution for UM therapy

Multi-Institutional Dosimetric Evaluation of Modern Day Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) Treatment Options for Multiple Brain Metastases.

Purpose/Objectives: There are several popular treatment options currently available for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of multiple brain metastases: 60Co sources and cone collimators around a spherical geometry (GammaKnife), multi-aperture dynamic conformal arcs on a linac (BrainLab Elements™ v1.5), and volumetric arc therapy on a linac (VMAT) calculated with either the conventional optimizer or with the Varian HyperArc™ solution. This study aimed to dosimetrically compare and evaluate the differences among these treatment options in terms of dose conformity to the tumor as well as dose sparing to the surrounding normal tissues. Methods and Materials: Sixteen patients and a total of 112 metastases were analyzed. Five plans were generated per patient: GammaKnife, Elements, HyperArc-VMAT, and two Manual-VMAT plans to evaluate different treatment planning styles. Manual-VMAT plans were generated by different institutions according to their own clinical planning standards. The following dosimetric parameters were extracted: RTOG and Paddick conformity indices, gradient index, total volume of brain receiving 12Gy, 6Gy, and 3Gy, and maximum doses to surrounding organs. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was applied to evaluate statistically significant differences (p \u3c 0.05). Results: For targets ≤ 1 cm, GammaKnife, HyperArc-VMAT and both Manual-VMAT plans achieved comparable conformity indices, all superior to Elements. However, GammaKnife resulted in the lowest gradient indices at these target sizes. HyperArc-VMAT performed similarly to GammaKnife for V12Gy parameters. For targets ≥ 1 cm, HyperArc-VMAT and Manual-VMAT plans resulted in superior conformity vs. GammaKnife and Elements. All SRS plans achieved clinically acceptable organs-at-risk dose constraints. Beam-on times were significantly longer for GammaKnife. Manual-VMATA and Elements resulted in shorter delivery times relative to Manual-VMATB and HyperArc-VMAT. Conclusion: The study revealed that Manual-VMAT and HyperArc-VMAT are capable of achieving similar low dose brain spillage and conformity as GammaKnife, while significantly minimizing beam-on time. For targets smaller than 1 cm in diameter, GammaKnife still resulted in superior gradient indices. The quality of the two sets of Manual-VMAT plans varied greatly based on planner and optimization constraint settings, whereas HyperArc-VMAT performed dosimetrically superior to the two Manual-VMAT plans

Multi-center planning study of radiosurgery for intracranial metastases through Automation (MC-PRIMA) by crowdsourcing prior web-based plan challenge study

Background: Planning radiosurgery to multiple intracranial metastases is complex and shows large variability in dosimetric quality among planners and treatment planning systems (TPS). This project aimed to determine whether autoplanning using the Muliple Brain Mets (AutoMBM) software can improve plan quality and reduce inter-planner variability by crowdsourcing results from prior international planning study. Methods: Twenty-four institutions autoplanned with AutoMBM on a five metastases case from a prior international planning competition from which population statistics (means and variances) of 23 dosimetric metrics and resulting composite plan score (maximum score = 150) of other TPS (Eclipse, Monaco, RayStation, iPlan, GammaPlan, MultiPlan) were crowdsourced. Plan results of AutoMBM and each of the other TPS were compared using two sample t-tests for means and Levene\u27s tests for variances. Plan quality of AutoMBM was correlated with the planner\u27 experience and compared between academic and non-academic centers. Results: AutoMBM produced plans with comparable composite plan score to GammaPlan, MultiPlan, Eclipse and iPlan (127.6 vs. 131.7 vs. 127.3 vs. 127.3 and 126.7; all p \u3e 0.05) and superior to Monaco and RayStation (118.3 and 108.6; both p \u3c 0.05). Inter-planner variability of overall plan quality was lowest for AutoMBM among all TPS (all p \u3c 0.05). AutoMBM\u27s plan quality did not differ between academic and non-academic centers and uncorrelated with planning experience (all p \u3e 0.05). Conclusions: By plan crowdsourcing prior international plan challenge, AutoMBM produces high and consistent plan quality independent of the planning experience and the institution that is crucial to addressing the technical bottleneck of SRS to intracranial metastases