Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple small brain metastases using gamma knife versus single-isocenter VMAT: Normal brain dose based on lesion number and size.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1002/acm2.70065
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
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
期刊最新文献
Quantification and dosimetric impact of intra-fractional bladder changes during CBCT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for pelvic cancer treatments. Modelling of a double-scattering proton therapy nozzle using the FLUKA Monte Carlo code and analysis of linear energy transfer in patients treated for prostate cancer. Position-dependent offset corrections for ring applicator reconstruction in cervical cancer brachytherapy. A systematic review of electron FLASH dosimetry and beam control mechanisms utilized with modified non-clinical LINACs. Closing the gap in plan quality: Leveraging deep-learning dose prediction for adaptive radiotherapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1