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

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