SU-D-BRB-04: Plan Quality Comparison of Intracranial Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) for Gamma Knife and VMAT Treatments

Abstract

Purpose: To compare treatment plan quality of intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for VMAT (RapidArc) and Gamma Knife (GK) systems. Methods: Ten patients with 24 tumors (seven with 1–2 and three with 4–6 lesions), previously treated with GK 4C (prescription doses ranging from 14–23 Gy) were re-planned for RapidArc. Identical contour sets were kept on MRI images for both plans with tissues assigned a CT number of zero. RapidArc plans were performed using 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams with dose rate of 1400 MU/minute using two to eight arcs with the following combinations: 2 full coplanar arcs and the rest non-coplanar half arcs. Beam selection was based on target depth. Areas that penetrated more than 10 cm of tissue were avoided by creating smaller arcs or using avoidance sectors in optimization. Plans were optimized with jaw tracking and a high weighting to the normal-brain-tissue and Normal-Tissue-Objective without compromising PTV coverage. Plans were calculated on a 1 mm grid size using AAA algorithm and then normalized so that 99% of each target volume received the prescription dose. Plan quality was assessed by target coverage using Paddick Conformity Index (PCI), sparing of normal-brain-tissue through analysis of V4, V8, and V12 Gy, and integralmore » dose. Results: In all cases critical structure dose criteria were met. RapidArc had a higher PCI than GK plans for 23 out of 24 lesions. The average PCI was 0.76±0.21 for RapidArc and 0.46±0.20 for GK plans (p≤0.001), respectively. Integral dose and normal-brain-tissue doses for all criteria were lower for RapidArc in nearly all patients. The average ratio of GK to RapidArc plans was 1.28±0.27 (p=0.018), 1.31±0.25 (p=0.017), 1.81±0.43 (p=0.005), and 1.50±0.61 (p=0.006) for V4, V8, and V12 Gy, and integral dose, respectively. Conclusion: VMAT was capable of producing higher quality treatment plans than GK when using optimal beam geometries and proper optimization techniques.« less