Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple small brain metastases using gamma knife versus single-isocenter VMAT: Normal brain dose based on lesion number and size.
Abram Abdou, Timoteo Almeida, Elizabeth Bossart, Irene Monterroso, Eric A Mellon
{"title":"Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple small brain metastases using gamma knife versus single-isocenter VMAT: Normal brain dose based on lesion number and size.","authors":"Abram Abdou, Timoteo Almeida, Elizabeth Bossart, Irene Monterroso, Eric A Mellon","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The study evaluates rapid linear accelerator (Linac) single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with Hyperarc for large target numbers. We compared to Gamma Knife (GK), which suffers from long treatment times and investigated causes of differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Linac SRS and GK treatment plans for patients receiving 18 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) were evaluated for mean brain dose and volume of brain receiving 12 Gy or more (V12 Gy) as toxicity correlates. Further investigations included patient-based and simulations of 1-33 brain metastases to compare the ability of Linac SRS and GK to separate adjacent and distant lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For three patients (33, 33, and 18 metastases), GK reduced mean brain dose (2.89 Gy, 2.38 Gy, 2.79 Gy) compared to 2.5 mm microMLCs (4.36 Gy, 4.75 Gy, 4.26 Gy, p = 0.027) and 5 mm MLCs (4.71 Gy, 5.22 Gy, 4.60 Gy, p = 0.024). GK also improved V12 Gy (13.29 cc, 11.62 cc, 33.79 cc) compared to microMLC (25.31 cc, 30.91 cc, 54.71 cc, p = 0.019) and MLC (31.69 cc, 33.68 cc, 54.71 cc). This must be balanced with GK treatment times (5-11 h). GK achieved 50% prescription line separation at smaller distances (1.8-7.6 mm) than microMLC (7.7-10.2 mm) or MLC (8.8-12.2 mm) for 0.5-1.0 cm targets (4-8 mm collimator single shot). For 1.5 cm targets (16 mm shot) results were mixed (GK 5.4-17 mm, microMLC 9.5-11.2 mm, MLC 9.5-11.3 mm). A 7.7 cm simulation cube was then incrementally filled with 0.5 cm or 1.0 cm equidistant targets. GK plan mean brain dose increased 0.04 Gy/target (1.08 Gy mean/27 targets) compared to 0.14 Gy/target for microMLC (3.78 Gy mean/27 targets) for 0.5 cm targets, with differences diminishing for 1.0 cm targets (GK 0.15 Gy/target, microMLC 0.17 Gy/target).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For numerous small metastases GK improves dosimetry but has exceedingly long treatment times. GK improves dose separation for adjacent lesions < 1.0 cm and conformity for small (∼0.5 cm) targets. GK and Linac differences are small for individual targets but compound over many targets. V12 Gy limits in the NCIC CE.7 trial protocol mandate dose modifications for Linac SRS but not GK.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70065"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The study evaluates rapid linear accelerator (Linac) single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with Hyperarc for large target numbers. We compared to Gamma Knife (GK), which suffers from long treatment times and investigated causes of differences.
Methods: Linac SRS and GK treatment plans for patients receiving 18 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) were evaluated for mean brain dose and volume of brain receiving 12 Gy or more (V12 Gy) as toxicity correlates. Further investigations included patient-based and simulations of 1-33 brain metastases to compare the ability of Linac SRS and GK to separate adjacent and distant lesions.
Results: For three patients (33, 33, and 18 metastases), GK reduced mean brain dose (2.89 Gy, 2.38 Gy, 2.79 Gy) compared to 2.5 mm microMLCs (4.36 Gy, 4.75 Gy, 4.26 Gy, p = 0.027) and 5 mm MLCs (4.71 Gy, 5.22 Gy, 4.60 Gy, p = 0.024). GK also improved V12 Gy (13.29 cc, 11.62 cc, 33.79 cc) compared to microMLC (25.31 cc, 30.91 cc, 54.71 cc, p = 0.019) and MLC (31.69 cc, 33.68 cc, 54.71 cc). This must be balanced with GK treatment times (5-11 h). GK achieved 50% prescription line separation at smaller distances (1.8-7.6 mm) than microMLC (7.7-10.2 mm) or MLC (8.8-12.2 mm) for 0.5-1.0 cm targets (4-8 mm collimator single shot). For 1.5 cm targets (16 mm shot) results were mixed (GK 5.4-17 mm, microMLC 9.5-11.2 mm, MLC 9.5-11.3 mm). A 7.7 cm simulation cube was then incrementally filled with 0.5 cm or 1.0 cm equidistant targets. GK plan mean brain dose increased 0.04 Gy/target (1.08 Gy mean/27 targets) compared to 0.14 Gy/target for microMLC (3.78 Gy mean/27 targets) for 0.5 cm targets, with differences diminishing for 1.0 cm targets (GK 0.15 Gy/target, microMLC 0.17 Gy/target).
Conclusions: For numerous small metastases GK improves dosimetry but has exceedingly long treatment times. GK improves dose separation for adjacent lesions < 1.0 cm and conformity for small (∼0.5 cm) targets. GK and Linac differences are small for individual targets but compound over many targets. V12 Gy limits in the NCIC CE.7 trial protocol mandate dose modifications for Linac SRS but not GK.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic