Non-coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Research Articles

Comprehensively evaluating the performance of Elekta high-definition dynamic radiosurgery for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain metastases

PurposeTo evaluate the dosimetric and delivery performance of Elekta high-definition dynamic radiosurgery (HDRS) in hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for multiple brain metastases (BMs) by comparison with a conventional single-isocenter noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique using the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and methodsFrom June 2022 to October 2023, thirty-two patients (a total of 140 BMs) treated with HSRT (30–48 Gy/3-6f) via HDRS-based single-isocenter noncoplanar VMAT (HDRS-VMAT) were retrospectively selected for this study. Each patient was replanned using RayStation TPS-based single-isocenter noncoplanar VMAT (RayStation-VMAT). HDRS-VMAT and RayStation-VMAT plans were compared in terms of the gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), normal brain tissue (NBT) dose exposure, monitor units (MUs), homogeneity index (HI), delivery accuracy, and beam-on time (BOT). ResultsCompared with the RayStation-VMAT plan, the HDRS-VMAT plan achieved superior CI (1.14 ± 0.09 vs. 1.23 ± 0.12, P < 0.001) and GI (5.23 ± 1.18 vs. 7.83 ± 2.75, p < 0.001) but had greater HI values. Compared with the RyaStation-VMAT plan, the HDRS-VMAT plan also yielded significantly lower NBT dose exposures (V23Gy, V21Gy, V18Gy, V12Gy and Dmean) but at the cost of increased MUs (3659.16 ± 1225.28 vs. 2536.23 ± 785.80, p < 0.001). The difference in BOTs was minimal (<1 min), which was not considered clinically significant. Furthermore, the HDRS-VMAT exhibited a higher gamma passing rate across all criteria (P < 0.001), particularly under stricter criteria (2%/1 mm), achieving an approximately 3% increase. ConclusionCompared with RaySation-VMAT, HDRS-VMAT offers superior target conformity, better NBT sparing, and higher delivery accuracy while maintaining comparable delivery efficiency. This represents a promising approach for HSRT of multiple BMs.

Feasibility of a Single-Fraction Stereotactic Dose of 30 Gy to Solitary Lung Lesions on Halcyon.

Purpose We sought to explore the feasibility of using the current co-planar Halcyon ring delivery system (RDS) with a novel multileaf collimator (MLC) aperture shape controller in delivering a single high dose of 30 Gy to solitary lung lesions via stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Materials and methods Thirteen non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients previously treated with a single dose of 30 Gy to lung lesions via SBRT on the TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) using non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) arcs were anonymized and replanned onto the Halcyon RDS (6MV-FFF) following RTOG-0915 single-fraction criteria. The Halcyon plans utilized a novel dynamic conformal arc (DCA)-based MLC-fitting approach before VMAT optimization with a user-defined aperture shape controller option. The clinical TrueBeam and Halcyon plans were compared via their protocol compliance, target conformity, gradient index, and dose to organs-at-risk (OAR). Treatment delivery efficacy and accuracy were assessed through end-to-end quality assurance (QA) tests on Halcyon and independent dose verification via in-house Monte Carlo (MC) second-check validation. Results All Halcyon lung SBRT plans met RTOG-0915 protocol's requirements for target coverage, conformity, and gradient indices, and maximum dose 2 cm away from the target (D2cm) while being statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) when compared to clinical TrueBeam plans. Additionally, Halcyon provided a similar dose to OAR except for the ribs, where Halcyon demonstrated a lower maximum dose (15.22 Gy vs 17.01 Gy, p < 0.001). However, Halcyon plans required a higher total monitor unit (8892 MU vs 7413 MU, p < 0.001), resulting in a higher beam modulation factor (2.96 MU/cGy vs 2.47 MU/cGy, p < 0.001) and an increase in beam-on time by a factor of 2.1 (11.11 min vs 5.3 min, p < 0.005). End-to-end QA measurements demonstrate that Halcyon plans were clinically acceptable with an average gamma passing rate of 99.8% for 2%/2mm criteria and independent MC 2nd checks within ±2.86%. Conclusion Our end-to-end testing and validation study demonstrates that by utilizing a DCA-based MLC aperture shape controller before VMAT optimization, Halcyon can be used for delivering a single dose of lung SBRT treatment. However, future improvements of Halcyon RDS are recommended to allow higher output rates, rotational couch corrections, and an integrated intrafraction motion management system that will further enhance Halcyon's capability for site-specific single dosage of SBRT.

Impact of setup errors on the robustness of linac-based single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans for multiple brain metastases.

Patient setup errors have been a primary concern impacting the dose delivery accuracy in radiation therapy. A robust treatment plan might mitigate the effects of patient setup errors. In this reported study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of translational and rotational errors on the robustness of linac-based, single-isocenter, coplanar, and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans for multiple brain metastases. Fifteen patients were retrospectively selected for this study with a combined total of 49 gross tumor volumes (GTVs). Single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar plans were generated first with a prescribed dose of 40Gy in 5 fractions or 42Gy in 7 fractions to cover 95% of planning target volume (PTV). Next, four setup errors (+1 and +2mm translation, and +1° and +2° rotation) were applied individually to generate modified plans. Different plan quality evaluation metrics were compared between coplanar and non-coplanar plans. 3D gamma analysis (3%/2mm) was performed to compare the modified plans (+2mm and +2° only) and the original plans. Paired t-test was conducted for statistical analysis. After applying setup errors, variations of all plan evaluation metrics were similar (p>0.05). The worst case for V100% to GTV was 92.07%±6.13% in the case of +2mm translational error. 3D gamma pass rates were>90% for both coplanar (+2mm and +2°) and the +2mm non-coplanar groups but was 87.40%±6.89% for the +2° non-coplanar group. Translational errors have a greater impact on PTV and GTV dose coverage for both planning methods. Rotational errors have a greater negative impact on gamma pass rates of non-coplanar plans. Plan evaluation metrics after applying setup errors showed that both coplanar and non-coplanar plans were robust and clinically acceptable.

Total scalp irradiation: A study comparing multiple types of bolus and VMAT optimization techniques.

To investigate bolus design and VMAT optimization settings for total scalp irradiation. Three silicone bolus designs (flat, hat, and custom) from .decimal were evaluated for adherence to five anthropomorphic head phantoms. Flat bolus was cut from a silicone sheet. Generic hat bolus resembles an elongated swim cap while custom bolus is manufactured by injecting silicone into a 3D printed mold. Bolus placement time was recorded. Air gaps between bolus and scalp were quantified on CT images. The dosimetric effect of air gaps on target coverage was evaluated in a treatment planning study where the scalp was planned to 60Gy in 30 fractions. A noncoplanar VMAT technique based on gEUD penalties was investigated that explored the full range of gEUD alpha values to determine which settings achieve sufficient target coverage while minimizing brain dose. ANOVA and the t-test were used to evaluate statistically significant differences (threshold=0.05). The flat bolus took 32±5.9min to construct and place, which was significantly longer (p<0.001) compared with 0.67±0.2min for the generic hat bolus or 0.53±0.10min for the custom bolus. The air gap volumes were 38±9.3cc, 32±14cc, and 17±7.0cc for the flat, hat, and custom boluses, respectively. While the air gap differences between the flat and custom boluses were significant (p=0.011), there were no significant dosimetric differences in PTV coverage at V57Gy or V60Gy. In the VMAT optimization study, a gEUD alpha of 2 was found to minimize the mean brain dose. Two challenging aspects of total scalp irradiation were investigated: bolus design and plan optimization. Results from this study show opportunities to shorten bolus fabrication time during simulation and create high quality treatment plans using a straightforward VMAT template with simple optimization settings.

Dosimetrically motivated beam-angle optimization for non-coplanar arc radiotherapy with and without dynamic collimator rotation.

Non-coplanar techniques have shown to improve the achievable dose distribution compared to standard coplanar techniques for multiple treatment sites but finding optimal beam directions is challenging. Dynamic collimator trajectory radiotherapy (colli-DTRT) is a new intensity modulated radiotherapy technique that uses non-coplanar partial arcs and dynamic collimator rotation. To solve the beam angle optimization (BAO) problem for colli-DTRT and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) by determining the table-angle and the gantry-angle ranges of the partial arcs through iterative 4π fluence map optimization (FMO) and beam direction elimination. BAO considers all available beam directions sampled on a gantry-table map with the collimator angle aligned to the superior-inferior axis (colli-DTRT) or static (NC-VMAT). First, FMO is performed, and beam directions are scored based on their contributions to the objective function. The map is thresholded to remove the least contributing beam directions, and arc candidates are formed by adjacent beam directions with the same table angle. Next, FMO and arc candidate trimming, based on objective function penalty score, is performed iteratively until a desired total gantry angle range is reached. Direct aperture optimization on the final set of colli-DTRT or NC-VMAT arcs generates deliverable plans. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans were created for seven clinically-motivated cases with targets in the head and neck (two cases), brain, esophagus, lung, breast, and prostate. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were compared to coplanar VMAT plans as well as to class-solution non-coplanar VMAT plans for the brain and head and neck cases. Dosimetric validation was performed for one colli-DTRT (head and neck) and one NC-VMAT (breast) plan using film measurements. Target coverage and conformity was similar for all techniques. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans had improved dosimetric performance compared to coplanar VMAT for all treatment sites except prostate where all techniques were equivalent. For the head and neck and brain cases, mean dose reduction-in percentage of the prescription dose-to parallel organs was on average 0.7% (colli-DTRT), 0.8% (NC-VMAT) and 0.4% (class-solution) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.7% (colli-DTRT), 2.0% (NC-VMAT) and 0.9% (class-solution). For the esophagus, lung, and breast cases, mean dose reduction to parallel organs was on average 0.2% (colli-DTRT) and 0.3% (NC-VMAT) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.3% (colli-DTRT) and 0.9% (NC-VMAT). Estimated delivery times for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were below 4 min for a full gantry angle range of 720°, including transitions between arcs, except for the brain case where multiple arcs covered the whole table angle range. These times are in the same order as the class-solution for the head and neck and brain cases. Total optimization times were 25%-107% longer for colli-DTRT, including BAO, compared to VMAT. We successfully developed dosimetrically motivated BAO for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT treatment planning. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT are applicable to multiple treatment sites, including body sites, with beneficial or equivalent dosimetric performances compared to coplanar VMAT and reasonable delivery times.

Going from 3D/3D to 2D/3D registration for noncoplanar setup verification in intracranial single-isocenter multiple-target hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy: comparison between kilo-voltage/mega-voltage image pairs and noncoplanar cone-beam computed tomography.

Single-isocenter (SI) noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) has been widely used in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for multiple brain metastases (BMs). However, it is critical to verify patient positioning at a noncoplanar couch angle. This study aimed to compare the noncoplanar setup discrepancies between kilo-voltage/mega-voltage image (kV/MV) orthogonal image pairs with a 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D/3D) matching mode and noncoplanar cone-beam computed tomography (NC-CBCT) with a 3D/3D matching mode in SI NC-VMAT HSRT for multiple BMs. Twenty patients with multiple BMs [2-5] who underwent SI NC-VMAT HSRT were enrolled in this study. Prior to each noncoplanar field delivery, both kV/MV orthogonal image pairs and NC-CBCT were used to determine setup errors. The setup error values reported by NC-CBCT were defined as the gold standard and compared to those reported by kV/MV orthogonal image pairs. The Bland-Altman analysis method was utilized to assess the agreement of the two positioning modalities. In total, 104 kV/MV image pairs and NC-CBCT scans were acquired. The mean setup error differences (SEDs; absolute values) between the two positioning systems were 0.17 mm, 0.21 mm, 0.16 mm, 0.22°, 0.18°, and 0.17° in the vertical, longitudinal, lateral, yaw, pitch, and roll directions, respectively. The maximum SEDs regarding translation and rotation occurred in the longitudinal and yaw directions at 0.60 mm and 0.8°, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between the two positioning modalities, and the 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) never exceeded 0.6 mm and 0.6° in the translational and rotational directions, respectively. Only 4.80% of SEDs exceeded the tolerance of 0.5 mm/0.5°. Orthogonal kV/MV image pairs with 2D/3D matching mode could provide comparable accuracy for noncoplanar positioning as NC-CBCT with 3D/3D matching mode.

Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiation therapy

Whole brain radiation therapy with hippocampal-sparing (HS-WBRT) is a novel treatment of brain metastases, which can relieve symptoms reduce recurrence in the central nervous system, and spare the hippocampus without compromising target coverage. This study aims to find out the superior combination of the treatment planning system and linear accelerator between Eclipse (version 15.6) with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS (vision R001.4) with uRT-linac 506c in HS-WBRT. The coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for HS-WBRT plans were evaluated and compared on both combinations, respectively. Twenty patients for HS-WBRT were retrospectively selected at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) from 2021 to 2022. The coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans were designed by Eclipse and uRT-TPOIS referring to RTOG 0933 dose criteria, and their dosimetry parameters were compared. In addition, the plan complexity, monitor units, and beam-on time were recorded for Eclipse plans delivered on TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS plans delivered on uRT-linac 506c. The results demonstrated that the dosimetric criteria of 4 types of HS-WBRT plans could meet the requirements of RTOG 0933. In terms of target coverage, dosimetric indexes of Eclipse plans and uRT-TPOIS plans were comparable, and the former is slightly better. As for metrics of organs-at-risk protection, coplanar and noncoplanar plans conducted by uRT-TPOIS were greatly superior to those by Eclipse. For coplanar and noncoplanar plans designed by the same treatment planning system, most of the dosimetric indexes had no significant difference. The monitor units of uRT-TPOIS plans was higher than that of Eclipse plans, but the modulation complexity of them were close, and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c significantly reduced beam-on-time consumption by 9% on average for coplanar plans and 26% for noncoplanar plans compared to Eclipse with TrueBeam. This study firstly compared the coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans between Eclipse with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c in terms of dosimetry indexes, modulation complexity, and time consumption. It is shown that the radiation treatment solution of uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c is comparable with Eclipse with TrueBeam in terms of planning design, and significantly reduced the delivery time, which can be applied in clinical practice and promoted as a treatment format.

Dosimetric Comparison of Automated Non-Coplanar Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy in Angiosarcoma of the Scalp

Angiosarcoma of the scalp (AS) is a rare tumor and has often been treated by total scalp irradiation (TSI). TSI is a challenging technique because of the target close to the organs at risks (OARs), located in the skin surface, and helmet-shape of the target. We performed the dosimetric comparison of automated non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy (HA) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in TSI for AS. A planning study was performed on 20 patients with AS. The clinical target volume (CTV) 1 and CTV2 were defined as gross tumor volume with margin and entire scalp, respectively. For HA, planning target volume (PTV) 1 and PTV2 were defined as CTV1 and CTV2 with 5-mm margins, respectively. For IMPT, robust optimization was utilized which accounted for a 5-mm setup and a 3.5% range uncertainty and dose was prescribed to CTV1 robust and CTV2 robust. The prescription doses were 70 Gy and 56 Gy in 35 fractions to PTV1 (CTV1 robust) and PTV2 (CTV2 robust), respectively, using the simultaneous integrated boost technique. The HA plan was performed using a 6-MV photon beam machine and a 1-cm thick virtual bolus. The HA plan included three half non-coplanar and one full coplanar arc fields. The HA plan used collimator angles of 15°, 60°, 15°, and 120° in the beam with couch rotations of 0°, 45°, 90°, and 315°, respectively. The IMPT plan was performed using a compact proton beam machine dedicated to pencil beam scanning. The IMPT plan used gantry angles of 70°, 150°, 70°, 150°, and 30° in the beam with couch rotations of 0°, 0°, 180°, 180°, and 270°, respectively. The IMPT plan was optimized assuming a relative biological effectiveness of 1.1. The dose distribution and dosimetric parameters for each plan were evaluated. All plans met the goals within the acceptable range in target volume coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. Table shows the dosimetric parameters of OARs in HA and IMPT plans. The doses receiving 0.1 cc of the volume for hippocampus, optic passway, eye, and lens in the IMPT plan were significantly lower than those in the HA plan. The IMPT plan showed a significant reduction in the percentage of brain volume receiving at least 5 Gy (V5 Gy) compared to the HA plan, while the HA plan showed a significant reduction of V10 Gy - V60 Gy and mean brain dose compared to the IMPT plan. The HA plan provided a shorter beam-on time (184 ± 9 s) than did the IMPT plan (446 ± 49 s). The HA and IMPT plans demonstrated different strengths with respect to OARs sparing.

Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Radiation Therapy: 2 Arc Coplanar and 4 Arc Noncoplanar Planning Comparison

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been shown to provide palliation but with negative neurocognitive effects associated with radiation-induced damage to the hippocampus. Sparing of the hippocampus has been shown to reduce the risk of neurocognitive deficit. Hippocampal sparing WBRT plan optimization is commonly done using 2 arc coplanar technique. The purpose of this work is to show that 4 arc noncoplanar plans will improve hippocampal sparing without compromising PTV coverage. Retrospective WBRT with hippocampal sparing using 2 arc coplanar and 4 arc noncoplanar VMAT technique were done on 10 patients previously treated for intracranial lesions. CT and MRI fused images were used to delineate the whole brain and hippocampus. Strictly following RTOG 0933 atlas guidelines, the hippocampus was manually delineated by a single Radiation Oncologist. Plans with prescription dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions were generated using the 2 techniques. The 4 arc noncoplanar plan included 2 partial field arcs with couch angle at 90 degrees and 2 coplanar arcs. The 2 noncoplanar partial arcs consisted of a clockwise arc and a counterclockwise arc with gantry angles between 5 and 179 degrees. Lens were kept to < 7 Gy and pituitary gland to < 30 Gy. Dosimetric parameters from both techniques were compared by paired t-test. Radiation dose to the hippocampus was significantly reduced using 4 arc noncoplanar plan when compared to 2 arc coplanar plan. While hippocampus D100% were similar (7.25 Gy vs 7.32 Gy, p = 0.557), the mean dose (9.46 Gy vs 9.87 Gy, p = 0.003) and D0.03cc (12.48 Gy vs 12.94 Gy, p < 0.001) were significantly reduced with 4 arc noncoplanar plans. Whole brain PTV coverage remained at V100% = 95% for both techniques. However, the 4 arc noncoplanar plans showed significantly improved D2% (32.56 Gy vs 32.97 Gy, P = 0.003), D98% (28.11 Gy vs 27.91 Gy, P = 0.01), and homogeneity index (0.141 vs 0.159, P < 0.001). The 4 arc noncoplanar plans improved hippocampal sparing without compromising PTV coverage or compromise to other nearby organs at risk.

Escalating SBRT Dose to Hypoxic Centers of Large Pulmonary Tumors via Simultaneous Integrated Boost Confers Effective Local Control with Minimal Toxicity

Hypoxia confers radio-resistance to tumor cells and drives malignant disease progression. SBRT treatment of large (>5.0 cm) pulmonary tumors pose significant dosimetric challenges in minimizing dose to adjacent organs at risk (OARs). Here, we detail the use of SBRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the hypoxic centers of large pulmonary masses with effective local control and minimal normal tissue toxicity. Highly conformal treatment plans utilized 3-4 non-coplanar VMAT arcs with 6MV-FFF (1400 MU/min) and 4D-CT on TrueBeam to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). SIB dose of 60 Gy was delivered to a 1-cm internal margin from the gross tumor volume (GTV). Dose was calculated using Acuros-based engine. Pre-treatment Conebeam CT imaging was used for patient setup and verification. Treatments were delivered in < 15 minutes. Patients underwent post-treatment clinical evaluation and CT imaging in 3-month intervals to assess changes in tumor size and post-radiation sequelae. Clinical outcomes reported include treatment response and toxicity. Twenty-six patients with large, centrally (n = 13) or peripherally (n = 13) located tumors were evaluated; this included 16 NSCLC patients with T2-T3N0 disease and 5 with pulmonary metastases from distant sites. One patient had declined surgery, while 25/26 (96.1%) were deemed medically inoperable. All plans met RTOG-0813 requirements for target coverage and dose to OARs. Median follow-up interval was 11 months (0 to 23 months). Twenty-one of 26 (80.7%) patients received post-treatment CT imaging within 6 months of SBRT. Local control was achieved in 20/21 (95.2%) patients; one patient with a peripherally located tumor progressed outside the treatment field. Acute toxicity profile amongst the 25 patients assessed included grade 1 fatigue (n = 2), grade 1 rib pain (n = 1), and grade 2 pulmonary fibrosis (n = 1). Otherwise, 22/25 (88%) patients reported no radiation induced toxicities. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with centrally located tumors, defined as located <2 cm from the hilum, heart, or bronchial trees. One of 13 (7.6%) patients with central tumors reported grade 1 rib pain; otherwise, no radiation induced adverse effects were observed. All patients with centrally located lung tumors experienced local control on surveillance imaging. SBRT with SIB to the hypoxic centers of large pulmonary masses is a safe, efficacious treatment that confers improved local control while maintaining dose to adjacent OARs. This study demonstrates the feasibility of delivering doses up to 60 Gy to the hypoxic centers of large lung tumors, while decreasing local tumor burden, minimizing treatment mobility, and improving clinic workflow. SBRT with SIB shortens treatment course to 5 fractions (in contrast to the traditional daily 30 fractions), thus improving patient comfort and compliance.

Can Optical Surface Imaging Replace Non-coplanar Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Non-coplanar Set-up Verification in Single-isocentre Non-coplanar Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Single and Multiple Brain Metastases?

AimsTo conduct a direct comparison regarding the non-coplanar positioning accuracy between the optical surface imaging system Catalyst HDTM and non-coplanar cone-beam computed tomography (NC-CBCT) in intracranial single-isocentre non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT). Materials and methodsTwenty patients with between one and five brain metastases who underwent single-isocentre non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) SRS or HSRT were enrolled in this study. For each non-zero couch angle, both Catalyst HDTM and NC-CBCT were used for set-up verification prior to beam delivery. The set-up error reported by Catalyst HDTM was compared with the set-up error derived from NC-CBCT, which was defined as the gold standard. Additionally, the dose delivery accuracy of each non-coplanar field after using Catalyst HDTM and NC-CBCT for set-up correction was measured with SRS MapCHECKTM. ResultsThe median set-up error differences (absolute values) between the two positioning methods were 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, 0.50 mm, 0.15°, 0.10° and 0.10° in the vertical, longitudinal, lateral, yaw, pitch and roll directions, respectively. The largest absolute set-up error differences regarding translation and rotation were 1.5 mm and 1.1°, which occurred in the longitudinal and yaw directions, respectively. Only 35.71% of the pairs of measurements were within the tolerance of 0.5 mm and 0.5° simultaneously. In addition, the non-coplanar field with NC-CBCT correction yielded a higher gamma passing rate than that with Catalyst HDTM correction (P < 0.05), especially for evaluation criteria of 1%/1 mm with a median increase of 12.8%. ConclusionsCatalyst HDTM may not replace NC-CBCT for non-coplanar set-up corrections in single-isocentre NC-VMAT SRS and HSRT for single and multiple brain metastases. The potential role of Catalyst HDTM in intracranial SRS/HSRT needs to be further studied in the future.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases: A Single-Center Study

Whole-brain radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery are two treatment modalities commonly utilized to treat brain metastases (BMs). The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the main radio-oncologic and clinical-demographic aspects of a cohort of BM patients treated with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for radiosurgery (VMAT-RS). This is a cross-sectional observational design study with a retrospective review of the medical records of patients with brain metastases treated with VMAT-RS between 2012 and 2018. Clinical and demographic data, with special attention to sex, age, primary tumor, brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), number and brain location of BMs, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), the updated DS-GPA prognostic index, and the survival estimated according to the Kaplan–Meier model from the date of radiosurgery, were analyzed. One hundred and twenty-one patients with 229 BMs were treated with VMAT-RS. Patients presented 1–4 BMs, which were treated with five non-coplanar VMAT arcs. Sixty-eight percent of the patients had lung cancer, and 35% of the BMs were in the frontal lobe. The proportion of local control was 88.5%. BTRE prevalence was 30.6%. The median survival time (MST) was 7.7 months. In the multivariate analysis of the Cox regression model, KPS ≥ 70 (HRKPS &lt; 70 = 2.59; p = 0.001) and higher DS-GPA (HRDS-GPAII = 0.55, p = 0.022; HRDS-GPAIII-IV = 0.38, p = 0.006) were associated with improved survival. In the univariate analysis, primary tumor, age, and the presence of metastases in the posterior fossa (PFBMs) were also significant. In conclusion, the VMAT-RS is a technique with an overall survival rate comparable to other radiosurgery techniques. The median survival is significantly longer for those with higher KPS and DS-GPA. Other variables, such as the type of primary tumor, age, and PFBMs, could also influence survival, although further studies are needed.

Impact of magnetic resonance imaging-related geometric distortion of dose distribution in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases.

The geometric distortion related to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in adiagnostic radiology (MRDR) and radiotherapy (MRRT) setup is evaluated, and the dosimetric impact of MR distortion on fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) in patients with brain metastases is simulated. An anthropomorphic skull phantom was scanned using a1.5‑T MR scanner, and the magnitude of MR distortion was calculated with (MRDR-DC and MRRT-DC) and without (MRDR-nDC and MRRT-nDC) distortion-correction algorithms. Automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (HyperArc, HA; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) plans were generated for 53patients with 186 brain metastases. The MR distortion at each gross tumor volume (GTV) was calculated using the distance between the center of the GTV and the MR image isocenter (MIC) and the quadratic regression curve derived from the phantom study (MRRT-DC and MRRT-nDC). Subsequently, the radiation isocenter of the HA plans was shifted according to the MR distortion at each GTV (HADC and HAnDC). The median MR distortions were approximately 0.1 mm when the distance from the MIC was < 30 mm, whereas the median distortion varied widely when the distance was > 60 mm (0.23, 0.47, 0.37, and 0.57 mm in MRDR-DC, MRDR-nDC, MRRT-DC, and MRRT-nDC, respectively). The dose to the 98% of the GTV volume (D98%) decreased as the distance from the MIC increased. In the HADC plans, the relative dose difference of D98% was less than 5% when the GTV was located within 70 mm from the MIC, whereas the underdose of GTV exceeded 5% when it was 48 mm (-26.5% at maximum) away from the MIC in the HAnDC plans. Use of adistortion-correction algorithm in the studied MR diagnoses is essential, and the dosimetric impact of MR distortion is not negligible, particularly for tumors located far away from the MIC.

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and robustness for rotational errors in fractionated stereotactic irradiation using automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with brain metastases: single- versus multi-isocentric technique.

To compare the dosimetric parameters of automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans using single-isocentric (SIC) and multi-isocentric (MIC) techniques for patients with two brain metastases (BMs) in stereotactic irradiation and to evaluate the robustness of rotational errors. The SIC and MIC plans were retrospectively generated (35Gy/five fractions) for 58 patients. Subsequently, a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis between the tumor surface distance (TSD) and V25Gy was performed to determine the thresholds for the brain tissue. The SIC and MIC plans were recalculated based on the rotational images to evaluate the dosimetric impact of rotational error. The MIC plans showed better brain tissue sparing for TSD > 6.6cm. The SIC plans provided a significantly better conformity index for TSD ≤ 6.6cm, while significantly lower gradient index was obtained (3.22 ± 0.56vs. 3.30 ± 0.57, p < 0.05) in the MIC plans with TSD > 6.6cm. For organs at risk (OARs) (brainstem, chiasm, lens, optic nerves, and retinas), D0.1cc was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the MIC plans than in the SIC plans. The prescription dose could be delivered (D99%) to the gross tumor volume (GTV) for patients with TSD ≤ 6.6cm when the rotational error was < 1°, whereas 31% of the D99% of GTV fell below the prescription dose with TSD > 6.6cm. MIC plans can be an optimal approach for reducing doses to OARs and providing robustness against rotational errors in BMs with TSD > 6.6cm.

A simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for the whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampus avoidance.

To evaluate the feasibility of using a simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) and investigate its dosimetric advantages compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT). Ten patients with brain metastase (BM) were included for HA-WBRT. Three treatment plans were generated for each case using IMRT, C-VMAT, and NC-VMAT, respectively. The dosimetric results of the three techniques complied roughly with the RTOG 0933 criteria. After dose normalization, the V30Gy of whole brain planned target volume (WB-PTV) in all the plans was controlled at 95%. Homogeneity index (HI) of WB-PTV was significantly reduced in NC-VMAT (0.249 ± 0.017) over IMRT (0.265 ± 0.020, p=0.005) and C-VMAT (0.261 ± 0.014, p=0.020). In terms of conformity index (CI), NC-VMAT could provide a value of 0.821 ± 0.010, which was significantly superior to IMRT (0.788 ± 0.019, p<0.001). According to D2% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT could provide a value of 35.62 ± 0.37Gy, significantly superior to IMRT (36.43 ± 0.65Gy, p<0.001). According to D50% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT can achieve the lowest value of 33.18 ± 0.29Gy, significantly different from IMRT (33.47 ± 0.43, p=0.034) and C-VMAT (33.58 ± 0.37, p=0.006). Regarding D2%, D98%, and Dmean of hippocampus, NC-VMAT could control them at 15.57 ± 0.18Gy, 8.37 ± 0.26Gy and 11.71 ± 0.48Gy, respectively. D2% and Dmean of hippocampus for NC-VMAT was significantly lower than IMRT (D2%: 16.07 ± 0.29Gy, p=0.001 Dmean: 12.18 ± 0.33Gy, p<0.001) and C-VMAT (D2%: 15.92 ± 0.37Gy, p=0.009 Dmean: 12.21 ± 0.54Gy, p<0.001). For other organs-at-risk (OARs), according to D2% of the right optic nerves and the right lenses, NC-VMAT had the lowest values of 31.86 ± 1.11Gy and 7.15 ± 0.31Gy, respectively, which were statistically different from the other two techniques. For other organs including eyes and optic chiasm, NC-VMAT could achieve the lowest doses, different from IMRT statistically. The dosimetry of the three techniques for HA-WBRT could roughly comply with the proposals from RTOG 0933. After dose normalization (D95%=30Gy), NC-VMAT could significantly improve dose homogeneity and reduce the D50% in the brain. Besides, it can reduce the D2% of the hippocampus, optic nerves, and lens. With this approach, an efficient and straightforward plan was accomplished.

Clinical Feasibility of Using Single-isocentre Non-coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Combined with Non-coplanar Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Five or Fewer Multiple Intracranial Metastases

AimsTo evaluate the clinical feasibility of single-isocentre non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) with non-coplanar cone beam computed tomography (NC-CBCT) in hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for five or fewer multiple brain metastases. Materials and methodsTen patients with multiple brain metastases who underwent single-isocentre NC-VMAT HSRT with limited couch rotations (within ±45°) and NC-CBCT with a limited scanning range (150–200°) were included in the current analysis. Conventional single-isocentre coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT) plans were generated and compared with NC-VMAT plans. The intracranial response and toxicities of single-isocentre NC-VMAT HSRT were also evaluated. ResultsCompared with C-VMAT, NC-VMAT generated better target conformity (P < 0.05), a lower gradient index (P < 0.05) and better normal brain tissue sparing, especially for volume ≥12 Gy, with a median reduction of 12.65 cm3. For 45° couch rotation, NC-CBCT produced sufficient image quality to differentiate bony anatomy, even with a 150° scanning range, which could be successfully used for patient set-up correction. After NC-CBCT, 57.1% of the measured non-coplanar set-up errors exceeded the threshold value. The median gamma passing rate of NC-VMAT was higher than that of C-VMAT plans (P < 0.05). The non-coplanar beam of NC-VMAT with NC-CBCT corrections exhibited superior gamma passing rate to that without NC-CBCT corrections. The intracranial objective response rate and disease control rate for all patients were 80% (8/10) and 100% (10/10), respectively, and the most common toxicities were headache (20%) and dizziness (20%). ConclusionNC-VMAT with limited couch rotation (within ±45°) combined with NC-CBCT with a limited scanning range (150–200°) markedly improves the plan quality and set-up accuracy in single-isocentre multiple-target HSRT.

Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on a Cage-Like Radiotherapy System: A Simulation Study.

The incorporation of noncoplanar beam arrangements has been proposed in liver radiotherapy modalities, which can reduce the dose in normal tissues compared to coplanar techniques. Noncoplanar radiotherapy techniques for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment based on the Linac design have a limited effective arc angle to avoid collisions. To propose a novel noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system and investigate its performance in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The computed tomography was deflected 90° to meet the structure of a cage-like radiotherapy system and design the noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system plan in the Pinnacle3 planning system. An noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system plan was customized for each of 10 included hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with 6 dual arcs ranging from -30° to 30°. Six couch angles were set with an interval of 36° and distributed along with the longest diameter of planning target volume. The dosimetric parameters of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system plan were compared with the noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plan. The 3 radiotherapy techniques regarding planning target volume were statistically different for D98%, D2%, conformity index, and homogeneity index with χ2 = 9.692, 14.600, 8.600, and 12.600, and P = .008, .001, .014, and .002, respectively. Further multiple comparisons revealed that noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system significantly reduced the mean dose (P = .005) and V5 (P = .005) of the normal liver, the mean dose (P = .005) of the stomach, and V30 (P = .028) of the lung compared to noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system significantly reduced the mean dose (P = .005) and V5 (P = .005) of the normal liver, the mean dose (P = .017) of the spinal cord, V50 (P = .043) of the duodenum, the maximum dose (P = .007) of the esophagus, and V30 (P = .047) of the whole lung compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy. The results indicate that noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system protects the normal liver, stomach, and lung better than noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and protects the normal liver, spinal cord, duodenum, esophagus, and lung better than volumetric modulated arc therapy. The noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system technique with the arrangement of noncoplanar arcs provided optimal dosimetric gains compared with noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, except for the heart. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique based on a cage-like radiotherapy system should be considered in more clinically challenging cases.

Dosimetric Effects of Dynamic Jaw Tracking and Collimator Angle Optimization in Non-Coplanar Cranial Arc Radiotherapy.

The stereotactic treatment of single cranial targets using noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows for effective dose delivery to the target, while sparing normal brain tissue. In this study, the dosimetric effect of adding dynamic jaw tracking and automatic collimator angle selection in the optimization of single target cranial VMAT plans was investigated. Twenty-two cranial targets, previously treated with VMAT without dynamic jaw tracking and automatic collimator angle optimization (CAO) were chosen for replanning. Target volumes ranged from 0.441cc to 25.863cc with doses between 18Gy and 30Gy delivered in 1 to 5 fractions. Original plans were reoptimized with automatic CAO, keeping all other objectives the same (CAO plans). Next, original plans were reoptimized with both dynamic jaw tracking and CAO (DJT plans). Original, CAO, and DJT target doses were compared using the Paddick gradient index (GI) and the Paddick inverse conformity index (ICI), while normal tissue dose was compared using the volume of the normal brain receiving 5Gy, 10Gy, and 12Gy. The normal tissue volume was normalized to target size to allow cross comparison between plans. A one-sided t-test was performed to determine whether the changes in the plan metrics were statistically significant. CAO plans had improved GIs compared to the originals (p = 0.03) with insignificant changes in other plan metrics (p > 0.20). The addition of dynamic jaw tracking in DJT plans greatly improved ICIs and normal brain metrics (p < 0.01) compared to the CAO plans with minor improvement in ICIs (p = 0.07). The combined effect of adding dynamic jaw tracking and collimator optimization led to improvements in all metrics of the DJT plans when compared to the original (p < 0.02). The addition of dynamic jaw tracking and CAO led to improvements in both target and normal tissue dose metrics for single-target noncoplanar cranial VMAT plans.

Hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy under coplanar or noncoplanar VMAT.

Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) can alleviate symptoms in patients with brain metastases. However, WBRT may damage the hippocampus. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve a suitable coverage of the target region and a more conforming dose distribution whereas decreasing the dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). Herein, we aimed to compare the differences between treatment plans utilizing coplanar VMAT and noncoplanar VMAT in hippocampal-sparing WBRT (HS-WBRT). Ten patients were included in this study. For each patient, the Eclipse A10 treatment planning system was used to generate 1 coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT) and 2 noncoplanar VMAT treatment plans with various beam angles (noncoplanar VMAT A [NC-A] and noncoplanar VMAT B [NC-B]) for HS-WBRT. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy in 12 fractions. Treatment plans were established based on the OAR dose constraints of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933 (RTOG 0933). Parameters such as the global maximum dose, dose conformity, dose homogeneity of plans, and OAR doses were evaluated. The maximum biologically equivalent doses in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) of OARs in C-VMAT were 9.17 ± 0.61, 42.79 ± 2.00, and 42.84 ± 3.52 Gy in the hippocampus, brain stem, and optic chiasm, respectively, which were the lowest among the 3 treatment plans. There was no significant difference in dose conformity among the 3 treatment plans. However, NC-A had a slightly better conformity than C-VMAT and NC-B. NC-A had the best homogeneity, and NC-B had the worst homogeneity (p = 0.042). NC-A and NC-B had the lowest and highest global dose maximum, respectively. Therefore, NC-A, which had an intermediate performance in terms of OAR doses, had the best quality parameters. We used the quality score table based on the p-value to evaluate the significant difference between each treatment technique from the multiparameter results. In terms of treatment plan parameters, only NC-A received a score of 2; for OAR doses, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a score of 6, 3, and 5, respectively. For the overall evaluation, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a total score of 6, 5, and 5, respectively. Rather than noncoplanar VMAT, 3 full-arc C-VMATs should be utilized in HS-WBRT. C-VMAT can simultaneously maintain treatment plan quality and decrease patient alignment time and total treatment time.

Automated Non-coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning for Maxillary Sinus Carcinoma.

Dosimetric parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), and automated NC-VMAT (HyperArc, HA) were compared for patients with maxillary sinus carcinoma (MSC). Twenty HA plans were generated to deliver 70.4, 64, and 46 Gy for planning target volumes with high (PTV1), intermediate (PTV2), and low risk (PTV3), respectively. The VMAT and NC-VMAT plans were retrospectively generated using the same optimized parameters as those used in the HA plans. For PTV1, the three treatment plans provided comparable target coverages. For PTV2, the D95%, D99%, and Dmin in the HA plans (64.7±1.2, 62.7±2.1 and 54.6±6.2 Gy, respectively) were significantly higher (p<0.05) than those in the VMAT plans (64.3±1.7, 61.9±2.4 and 52.9±6.4 Gy, respectively). The NC-VMAT and HA plans provided significantly higher (p<0.05) dosimetric parameters for PTV3 than those in the VMAT plans, and D99% in the HA was significantly higher than that in the NC-VMAT plans (52.5±3.0 vs. 51.8±2.7 Gy, p<0.05). The doses to the brain and brainstem were lowest in the HA plans (p<0.05). Moreover, dosimetric parameters of the contralateral organs (lens, optic nerve, retina, and parotid) were lower in the HA plans than in the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. The HA plans provided the best target coverage and OAR sparing compared with VMAT and NC-VMAT plans for patients with MSC.