Abstract
Purpose: Dosimetric study to evaluate impact of “beam” reduction in AVM radiosurgery on normal brain dose parameters and it’s clinical implications. Materials and Methods: Five small volume AVMs (nidus volume 0.31 - 1.94 cc) planned for single fraction SRS with robotic radiosurgery system. Planning scans done with CT scan brain, CT & MR angiography, then nidus volume and organ at risk (OARs) were contoured. Planning was done with multiplan planning system. Plan evaluated as per Flickenger model parameters of 12 Gy nomal brain vol & marginal dose. 7.5 mm and 10 mm cons used, optimization done with seqential algorithm. 20 Gy was prescribed to isodose with appropriate nidus coverage (>98%). Total beams of five plans were 85 - 250, monitor unit 17,259 - 24,602 MU. 12 Gy normal brain volume is 0.9 - 7.6 cc. Then beam reduction is done by reducing beams with minimum MU in steps of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 MU and after beam reduction, re-optimization done. Prescription isodose was changed to keep the nidus coverage > 98%. Impacts of beam reduction on 12 Gy normal brain vol and conformity/homogeniety index were analyzed. Results: Optimal plans of five patients with 20 Gy prescribed to 88% - 90% isodose, nidus coverage more than 98%. In dosimetric parameters, mean CI was 1.36 - 1.51, nCI 1.41 - 1.51, HI 1.1 - 1.4 and mean 12 Gy normal brain volume 0.17, 1.44, 5.3, 5.5 and 7.6cc respectively. After beam reduction of less than 50 MU contribution (in case#1), prescibing at suitable isodose (85%) beam reduces to 79 and 12 Gy volume marginally increases to 26.4 cc. Beam reduction of less than 100 MU reduces to 53 - 92 beamlets. Reduction of beams with less than 150 MU contribution did not significantly change the 12Gy normal brain volume. However, reduction of beamlets with more than 200 MU, 250 MU, 300 MU, 450 MU and 550 MU significantly affects the 12 Gy normal brain volume. Prescription-isodose modified from 83% to 50% to have >98% coverage. CI and HI increased from 1.36 - 1.51 to 2.51 - 2.63 and 1.1 - 1.4 to 1.52 - 1.54 respectively. There was exponential increase in 12 Gy volume with reduction of beams with higher proportion in larger nidus. Conclusions: In robotic radiosurgery system, beam reduction even after re-optimization impairs the conformity index and increase 12 Gy normal brain volume, hence long-term toxicity. Optimal beam numbers are required for optimal plan generation.
Highlights
Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) of the brain are genetically determined abnormal formation of vasculature in the development which in turn may lead to a focal arterio-venous shunt and higher probability of rupture and bleeding [1] [2]
The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the impact of beam reduction on an optimal plan after re-optimization
After reduction of beams with less than 50 MU contribution, optimization and prescibing at suitable isodose to have nidus coverage more than 98% and 12 Gy normal brain volumes were calculated in all the plans
Summary
Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) of the brain are genetically determined abnormal formation of vasculature in the development which in turn may lead to a focal arterio-venous shunt and higher probability of rupture and bleeding [1] [2]. Single fraction radio surgery (SRS) is an effective alternative especially in deep seated and AVMs located in eloquent areas of brain [3] [4] [5]. Obliteration with SRS depending upon the size of the nidus, it’s location and “marginal” dose delivered [4] [5]. The side effect (persistent neurological deficit) depends upon the 12 Gy normal brain volume and site of the nidus [4]. Modernprecise techniques such as multiple arcs or multiple beams (robotic radiosurgery) promise higher conformity, lesser dose to normal brain (lesser 12 Gy volume) and are supposed to be more effective in “border line” size nidus. With increase in number of beams, there is increase in monitor unit and treatment time [8] [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
