Is smaller better? Comparison of 3-mm and 5-mm leaf size for stereotactic radiosurgery: A dosimetric study

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a dosimetric comparison of a minimal 3-mm leaf width multileaf collimator (MLC) and a minimal 5-mm MLC in dynamic conformal arc stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of intracranial lesions. Methods and Materials: The treatment plans of 23 patients previously treated for intracranial lesions in our institution were redone using the BrainSCAN, version 5.3, stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning system (BrainLAB). For each case, two dynamic conformal arc plans were generated: one using a minimal 3-mm micro-MLC (BrainLAB, Novalis) and one using a minimal 5-mm MLC (Varian Millennium). All arc parameters were the same in each of the two plans, except for the collimator angle settings. The collimator angle settings were optimized for each arc in each plan. A peritumoral rind structure (1 cm) was created to evaluate normal tissue sparing immediately adjacent to the target volume. Conformity indexes (CIs) were calculated for each plan. The dependence of normal tissue sparing and target conformity on target volume (TV) was determined. Results: The TV was 0.14–36.32 cm 3 (median, 5.90). The CI was 1.22–2.60 (median, 1.51) for the 3-mm micro-MLC and 1.23–2.69 (median, 1.60) for the 5-mm MLC. Despite this small difference, it was a statistically significant increase ( p 50 ), 80% (PRV 80 ), and 90% (PRV 90 ) of the prescription dose. The reduction in the PRV 50 , PRV 80 , and PRV 90 for the 3-mm micro-MLC compared with the 5-mm MLC was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 11.5%, respectively. The CI decreased with a larger TV, as did the difference in the CIs between the 3-mm micro-MLC and 5-mm MLC. A reduction in the PRV increased with larger TVs. Conclusion: The 3-mm micro-MLC provided better target conformity and greater normal tissue sparing than the 5-mm MLC in stereotactic radiosurgery using dynamic conformal arcs. These differences were small but consistent in the patients examined. Future research is needed to determine whether this small improvement can yield a clinical impact on patient care.