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

Abstract

PurposeIn 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.MethodsTen 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.ResultsFor single‐isocenter plans and 1⁰ rotations, plan quality indices, such as coverage, conformity index and D95%, 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, 1⁰ errors were well‐tolerated. In the most extreme case considered (2⁰ 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 Dmax and D0.02cc 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.ConclusionLimiting 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.