Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. CyberKnife M6 for the Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases

Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery using volumetric modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc therapy for multiple brain metastases

This paper presents a clinical comparison of the target dose, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and plan quality between volumetric modulated conformal arc therapy (VMAT) against dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) techniques to facilitate clinical decision-making in multiple brain metastases (MBM) treatment. A total of 11 cases having 33 lesions were recruited at the Union Oncology Centre, Union Hospital, Hong Kong SAR. With CT images available, all plans were optimized using both HyperArc (HA) and Brainlab Elements Multiple Brain Metastases (Elements MBM). Target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and dose distribution were compared pairwise between VMAT and DCAT. Results showed that the plans generated using both techniques achieved adequate target coverage to meet up with the oncologist's prescription. With similar levels of NTCP, the normal brain received low doses of radiation using both techniques and the risk of brain necrosis was kept equally low. This indicated that VMAT and DCAT produced similar high-quality treatment plans with low risks of brain necrosis. Meanwhile, VMAT showed better homogeneity which could potentially be more useful for large targets, while DCAT showed better target conformity especially for targets smaller than 1 cc. In general, both HA and Elements MBM demonstrated ability to generate high-quality clinical plans.

Insights into the dosimetric and geometric characteristics of stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

GammaKnife (GK) and CyberKnife (CK) have been the mainstay stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) solution for multiple brain metastases (MBM) for several years. Recent technological advancement has seen an increase in single-isocentre C-arm linac-based SRS. This systematic review focuses on dosimetric and geometric insights into contemporary MBM SRS and thereby establish if linac-based SRS has matured to match the mainstay SRS delivery systems.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were interrogated which yielded 891 relevant articles that narrowed to 20 articles after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary studies which reported the use of SRS for treatment of MBM SRS and reported the technical aspects including dosimetry were included. The review was limited to English language publications from January 2015 to August 2023. Only full-length papers were included in the final analysis. Opinion papers, commentary pieces, letters to the editor, abstracts, conference proceedings and editorials were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. The reporting of conformity indices (CI) and gradient indices, V12Gy, monitor units and the impact of translational and rotational shifts were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

The single-isocentre technique for MBM dominated recent SRS studies and the most studied delivery platforms were Varian. The C-arm linac-based SRS plan quality and normal brain tissue sparing was comparable to GK and CK and in some cases better. The most used nominal beam energy was 6FFF, and optimised couch and collimator angles could reduce mean normal brain dose by 11.3%. Reduction in volume of the healthy brain receiving a certain dose was dependent on the number and size of the metastases and the relative geometric location. GK and CK required 4.5-8.4 times treatment time compared with linac-based SRS. Rotational shifts caused larger changes in CI in C-arm linac-based single-isocentre SRS.

CONCLUSION

C-arm linac-based SRS produced comparable MBM plan quality and the delivery is notably shorter compared to GK and CK SRS.

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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 40 Gy in 5 fractions or 42 Gy in 7 fractions to cover 95% of planning target volume (PTV). Next, four setup errors (+1  and +2 mm 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%/2 mm) was performed to compare the modified plans (+2 mm and +2° only) and the original plans. Paired t-test was conducted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

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 +2 mm translational error. 3D gamma pass rates were > 90% for both coplanar (+2 mm and +2°) and the +2 mm non-coplanar groups but was 87.40% ± 6.89% for the +2° non-coplanar group.

CONCLUSION

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.

Comparative analysis of plan quality and delivery efficiency: ZAP-X vs. CyberKnife for brain metastases treatment

Purpose/Objectives

ZAP-X, a novel and dedicated radiosurgery (SRS) system, has recently emerged, while CyberKnife has solidified its position as a versatile solution for SRS and stereotactic body radiation therapy over the past two decades. This study aims to compare the dosimetric performance and delivery efficiency of ZAP-X and CyberKnife in treating brain metastases of varying target sizes, employing circular collimation.

Methods and materials

Twenty-three patients, encompassing a total of 47 brain metastases, were included in the creation of comparative plans of ZAP-X and CyberKnife for analysis. The comparative plans were generated to achieve identical prescription doses for the targets, while adhering to the same dose constraints for organs at risk (OAR). The prescription isodose percentage was optimized within the range of 97-100% for each plan to ensure effective target-volume coverage. To assess plan quality, indices such as conformity, homogeneity, and gradient (CI, HI, and GI) were computed, along with the reporting of total brain volumes receiving 12Gy and 10Gy. Estimated treatment time and monitor units (MUs) were compared between the two modalities in evaluating delivery efficiency.

Results

Overall, CyberKnife achieved better CI and HI, while ZAP-X exhibited better GI and a smaller irradiated volume for the normal brain. The superiority of CyberKnife's plan conformity was more pronounced for target size less than 1 cc and greater than 10 cc. Conversely, the advantage of ZAP-X's plan dose gradient was more notable for target sizes under 10 cc. The homogeneity of ZAP-X plans, employing multiple isocenters, displayed a strong correlation with the target's shape and the planner's experience in placing isocenters. Generally, the estimated treatment time was similar between the two modalities, and the delivery efficiency was significantly impacted by the chosen collimation sizes for both modalities.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that, within the range of target sizes within the patient cohort, plans generated by ZAP-X and CyberKnife exhibit comparable plan quality and delivery efficiency. At present, with the current platform of the two modalities, CyberKnife outperforms ZAP-X in terms of conformity and homogeneity, while ZAP-X tends to produce plans with a more rapid dose falloff.

Development of a 3D printed phantom for commissioning and quality assurance of multiple brain targets stereotactic radiosurgery

Single plan techniques for multiple brain targets (MBT) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are now routine. Patient specific quality assurance (QA) for MBT poses challenges due to the limited capabilities of existing QA tools which necessitates several plan redeliveries. This study sought to develop an SRS QA phantom that enables flexible MBT patient specific QA in a single delivery, along with complex SRS commissioning. PLA marble and PLA StoneFil materials were selected based on the literature and previous research conducted in our department. The HU numbers were investigated to determine the appropriate percentage infill for skull and soft-tissue equivalence. A Prusa MK3S printer in conjunction with the above-mentioned filaments were used to print the SRS QA phantom. Quality control (QC) was performed on the printed skull, film inserts and plugs for point dose measurements. EBT3 film and point dose measurements were performed using a CC04 ionisation chamber. QC demonstrated that the SRS QA phantom transverse, coronal and sagittal film planes were orthogonal within 0.5°. HU numbers for the skull, film inserts and plugs were 858 ± 20 and 35 ± 12 respectively. Point and EBT3 film dose measurements were within 2.5% and 3%/2 mm 95% gamma pass rate, respectively except one Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) that had a slightly lower gamma pass rate. Dose distributions to five GTVs were measured with EBT3 film in a single plan delivery on CyberKnife. In conclusion, an SRS QA phantom was designed, and 3D printed and its use for performing complex MBT patient specific QA in a single delivery was demonstrated.

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?

AIMS

To 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 METHODS

Twenty 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.

RESULTS

The 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%.

CONCLUSIONS

Catalyst 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.

Comparison of the accuracy of Monte Carlo and Ray Tracing dose calculation algorithms for multiple target brain treatments on CyberKnife

Single plan multiple brain targets (MBT) stereotactic radiosurgery dose difference between Monte Carlo (MC) and Ray Tracing (RT) algorithms has not been studied. A retrospective study and dose measurements were performed to access factors influencing dose differences. Fifty-three RT treatment plans with a total of 209 brain metastases were extracted from Precision Treatment Planning System (TPS). These plans were generated using fixed cones and were delivered using the CyberKnife M6 system. The same treatment plans were recalculated using MC algorithm and keeping the beam parameters unchanged. MC calculated plan parameters were extracted and dose differences were normalised to MC calculated dose. Correlations were investigated. RT and MC calculated off-centre-ratio (OCR) and tissue-phantom-ratio (TPRs) were exported from the TPS and compared with measured. Plans with 5 gross tumour volumes (GTVs) were created on a phantom and dose measured using a CC04 ionisation chamber and microdiamond detector for comparison with calculated doses. Calculated and measured TPR agreed within ± 1% beyond depth of maximum dose. The OCR showed differences up to 4.3% in the penumbra and out-of-field (OOF) regions. Largest RT and MC calculated GTV mean dose difference was - 5.7%. An increase in the number of GTVs and reduction in the geometric separation of metastases were associated with increased differences between RT and MC calculated doses. In conclusion, calculated dose disagreement in MBT depends on the number of GTVs per plan, number of GTVs within a certain separation distance and plan complexity. MC dose calculation is recommended for complex CyberKnife SRS of MBT.

Comparison between the HyperArc™ technique and the CyberKnife® technique for stereotactic treatment of brain metastases

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the planimetric capacities between HyperArc™-based stereotactic radiosurgery and robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife® M6 for single and multiple cranial metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 51 treatment plans for cranial metastases, including 30 patients with a single lesion and 21 patients with multiple lesions, treated with the CyberKnife® M6. These treatment plans were optimized using the HyperArc™ (HA) system with the TrueBeam. The comparison of the quality of the treatment plans between the two treatment techniques (CyberKnife and HyperArc) was performed using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric parameters were compared for target volumes and organs at risk.

RESULTS

Coverage of the target volumes was equivalent between the two techniques, whereas median Paddick conformity index and median gradient index for all target volumes were 0.9 and 3.4, respectively for HyperArc plans, and 0.8 and 4.5 for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001). The median dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) for HyperArc and CyberKnife plans were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively. Total brain V18Gy and V12Gy-GTVs were 11cm³ and 20.2cm³ for HyperArc plans versus 18cm³ and 34.1cm³ for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The HyperArc provided better brain sparing, with a significant reduction in V12Gy and V18Gy, associated with a lower gradient index, whereas the CyberKnife gave a higher median GTV dose. The HyperArc technique seems to be more appropriate for multiple cranial metastases and for large single metastatic lesions.

Radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases using volumetric modulated arc therapy: a single institutional series

Background

Patients with brain metastases (BM) live longer due to improved diagnosis and oncologic treatments. The association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) with brain radiosurgery (SRS) allows complex dose distributions and faster treatment delivery to multiple lesions.

Materials and methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of SRS for brain metastasis using VMAT. The primary endpoints were local disease-free survival (LDFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were intracranial disease-free survival (IDFS) and meningeal disease-free survival (MDFS).

Results

The average number of treated lesions was 5.79 (range: 2-20) per treatment in a total of 113 patients. The mean prescribed dose was 18 Gy (range: 12-24 Gy). The median LDFS was 46 months. The LDFS in 6, 12, and 24 months was for 86%, 79%, and 63%, respectively. Moreover, brain progression occurred in 50 patients. The median overall survival was 47 months. The OS in 75%, 69%, and 61% patients was 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. IDFS was 6 and 24 months in 35% and 14% patients, respectively. The mean MDFS was 62 months; it was 6 and 24 months for 87% and 83% of patients. Acute severe toxicity was relatively rare. During follow-up, the rates of radionecrosis and neurocognitive impairment were low (10%).

Conclusion

The use of VMAT-SRS for multiple BM was feasible, effective, and associated with low treatment-related toxicity rates. Thus, treatment with VMAT is a safe technique to plan to achieve local control without toxicity.

Radiosurgery for Five to Fifteen Brain Metastases: A Single Centre Experience and a Review of the Literature

Purpose

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is now mainstream for patients with 1-4 brain metastases however the management of patients with 5 or more brain metastases remains controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with 5 or more brain metastases and to compare with published series as a benchmarking exercise.

Methods

Patients with 5 or more brain metastases treated with a single isocentre dynamic conformal arc technique on a radiosurgery linac were identified from the institutional database. Endpoints were local control, distant brain failure, leptomeningeal disease and overall survival. Dosimetric data were extracted from the radiosurgery plans. Series reporting outcomes following SRS for multiple brain metastases were identified by a literature search.

Results

36 patients, of whom 35 could be evaluated, received SRS for 5 or more brain metastases between February 2015 and October 2021. 25 patients had 5-9 brain metastases (group 1) and 10 patients had 10-15 brain metastases (group 2). The mean number of brain metastases in group 1 was 6.3 (5-9) and 12.3 (10-15) in group 2. The median cumulative irradiated volume was 4.6 cm³ (1.25-11.01) in group 1 and 7.2 cm³ (2.6-11.1) in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months. At last follow-up, local control rates per BM were 100% and 99.8% as compared with a median of 87% at 1 year in published series. Distant brain failure was 36% and 50% at a median interval of 5.2 months and 7.4 months after SRS in groups 1 and 2 respectively and brain metastasis velocity at 1 year was similar in both groups (9.7 and 11). 8/25 patients received further SRS and 7/35 patients received whole brain radiotherapy. Median overall survival was 10 months in group 1 and 15.7 months in group 2, which compares well with the 7.5 months derived from the literature. There was one neurological death in group 2, leptomeningeal disease was rare (2/35) and there were no cases of radionecrosis.

Conclusion

With careful patient selection, overall survival following SRS for multiple brain metastases is determined by the course of the extracranial disease. SRS is an efficacious and safe modality that can achieve intracranial disease control and should be offered to patients with 5 or more brain metastases and a constellation of good prognostic factors.

Fiducial markers for stereotactic lung radiation therapy: review of the transthoracic, endovascular and endobronchial approaches

Stereotactic body radiation therapy is an alternative to surgery for early-stage, inoperable peripheral non-small cell lung cancer. As opposed to linear accelerator (linac)-based (e.g. gating) and free-breathing techniques, CyberKnife® with Synchrony® technology allows accurate radiation delivery by means of a real-time respiratory motion tracking system using, in most cases, metal fiducial markers (FMs) placed in the vicinity of the target. The aims of this review are as follows. First, to describe the safety and efficacy of the transthoracic, endovascular and endobronchial FM insertion techniques for peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Second, to analyse performance in terms of the migration and tracking rates of different FM types. Recent developments in FM tracking for central lesions will also be reviewed. In conclusion, for PPLs, the endobronchial approach provides a low rate of pneumothorax, offers the possibility of concurrent diagnostic sampling for both the PPL and the lymph nodes, and, finally, reduces the intervention time compared to other techniques. In this context, coil-tailed and coil-spring FMs have shown the lowest migration rate with a consequently high tracking rate.

Comparison of Two Cyberknife Planning Approaches for Multiple Brain Metastases

Purpose

To compare the delivery efficiency, plan quality, and planned treatment volume (PTV) and normal brain dosimetry between different Cyberknife planning approaches for multiple brain metastases (MBM), and to evaluate the effects of the number of collimators on the related parameters.

Methods

The study included 18 cases of MBM. The Cyberknife treatment plans were classified as Separate or Combined. For the Separate plan, each lesion was targeted by the collimator auto-selection method (Conformality 2/3 collimators). For the Combined plan, a PTV including all PTVs was targeted by the collimators. Monitor units (MUs), number of nodes and beams, estimated fraction treatment time (EFTT), new conformity index (nCI), dose gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), PTV minimum/maximum dose (D_max/D_min), volume doses (D_2% and D_98%), maximum doses to lenses, optic nerves, and brainstem as well as normal brain 3, 6, 10, and 12 Gy (V_3Gy–V_12Gy) were compared.

Results

Compared to the Combined plan, the Separate plan had fewer nodes and beams, shorter EFTT, smaller PTV D_min, normal brain dose, and GI, and larger HI. The Separate plan with 2 collimators also had worse PTV coverage. In the Combined plan, more collimators increased beams, EFTT, GI, and normal brain dose but improved the PTV D_min. Among treatments based on the Separate approach, there were obvious differences between plans for most of the items except the nCI. Fewer collimators resulted in significantly reduced beams, EFTT, PTV D_98%, and normal brain dose with improved GI, although PTV D_min and MUs were decreased while HI was increased.

Conclusion

Both approaches met the requirements for SRS/HFSRT. We found that Separate plans improved treatment efficiency and normal tissue dosimetry.

Efficacy and safety of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases using three fractions: A single-centre retrospective study

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) has become a standard of care for patients with a limited number of brain metastases (BM). An increasing number of linear accelerators (LA) are able to accurately perform HFSRT including VersaHD® (Elekta®) LA. The main aim of this study was to report clinical outcomes of BM treated by HFSRT using 3×7.7Gy on 70% isodose line in terms of local control (LC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2016 and October 2018, all patients suffering from histologically-proven primary with one or several newly diagnosed BM treated by HFSRT were retrospectively included and evaluated. Patients who had received prior treatment by neurosurgery or cerebral radiotherapy were excluded.

RESULTS

Among 44 patients, 61 BM were treated. With a median follow-up of 31.9 months, LC rates at 6 and 12 months were 93.2% and 90.9, respectively. Single-BM was independently predictive of LC (P=0.025) and overall survival (P=0.013). Acute toxicity rates were acceptable: 65.9% of patients had grade 1 and 2 and no acute grade 3 toxicity according to the NCI-CTCAE (version 5.0). Regarding delayed toxicity, one case (2.3%) of radionecrosis was confirmed by magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

CONCLUSION

In our single-centre retrospective analysis, BM treatment by HFSRT delivered in three fractions showed a 12-month LC rate of 90.9% without major toxicities, which suggests safety and efficiency of this technique. However, longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are still needed to confirm these results.

Endobronchial coil spring fiducial markers for CyberKnife® stereotactic body radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

SBRT is an alternative treatment for early-stage inoperable lung cancer. Metallic FM allow to increase tumour tracking precision by CyberKnife®. Currently used techniques for FM placement have many limitations; transthoracic insertion has a high risk for pneumothorax, endovascular insertion requires expertise and dedicated angiography infrastructure and endobronchial linear-gold FM dislocate frequently. This is the first study to assess the safety and efficacy of cs-FM endobronchial insertion under fluoroscopy with or without R-EBUS assessment.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients undergoing endobronchial cs-FM placement for at least one PPL <25 mm between 10.2015 and 12.2019. TBB of the PPL were performed in case of a typical R-EBUS signal. PPL tracking accuracy by CyberKnife, complications, cs-FM migration rate and procedure duration were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were treated during 55 procedures and 207 cs-FM were placed in 70 PPL. Tracking was successful for 65 of 70 (93%) PPL. R-EBUS was performed for 33 (47%) PPL and TBB for 9 (13%) PPL. Bronchospasm occurred once and any other complications were observed. Migration of cs-FM occurred in 16 of 207 (8%) cs-FM. Migration was more frequent when the target was in a previously irradiated area (P = 0.022). The median bronchoscopy duration was 31.5 min (n = 48 procedures).

CONCLUSION

Bronchoscopic cs-FM placement is a rapid and safe procedure. It is associated with a low migration rate and allows precise SBRT delivery. Previous irradiation of the PPL was associated with a higher migration rate.