Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Radiosurgery for Multiple Brain Metastases: Potential Loss of Target(s) Coverage Due to Isocenter Misalignment

Predicting the effect of indirect cell kill in the treatment of multiple brain metastases via single-isocenter/multitarget volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

Due to spatial uncertainty, patient setup errors are of major concern for radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases (m‐bm) when using single‐isocenter/multitarget (SIMT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. However, recent clinical outcome studies show high rates of tumor local control for SIMT‐VMAT. In addition to direct cell kill (DCK), another possible explanation includes the effects of indirect cell kill (ICK) via devascularization for a single dose of 15 Gy or more and by inducing a radiation immune intratumor response. This study quantifies the role of indirect cell death in dosimetric errors as a function of spatial patient setup uncertainty for stereotactic treatments of multiple lesions.

Material and Methods

Nine complex patients with 61 total tumors (2‐16 tumors/patient) were planned using SIMT‐VMAT with geometry similar to HyperArc with a 10MV‐FFF beam (2400 MU/min). Isocenter was placed at the geometric center of all tumors. Average gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were 1.1 cc (0.02–11.5) and 1.9 cc (0.11–18.8) with an average distance to isocenter of 5.4 cm (2.2–8.9). The prescription was 20 Gy to each PTV. Plans were recalculated with induced clinically observable patient setup errors [±2 mm, ±2^o] in all six directions. Boolean structures were generated to calculate the effect of DCK via 20 Gy isodose volume (IDV) and ICK via 15 Gy IDV minus the 20 Gy IDV. Contributions of each IDV to the PTV coverage were analyzed along with normal brain toxicity due to the patient setup uncertainty. Induced uncertainty and minimum dose covering the entire PTV were analyzed to determine the maximum tolerable patient setup errors to utilize the ICK effect for radiosurgery of m‐bm via SIMT‐VMAT.

Results

Patient setup errors of 1.3 mm /1.3° in all six directions must be maintained to achieve PTV coverage of the 15 Gy IDV for ICK. Setup errors of ±2 mm/2° showed clinically unacceptable loss of PTV coverage of 29.4 ± 14.6% even accounting the ICK effect. However, no clinically significant effect on normal brain dosimetry was observed.

Conclusions

Radiosurgery of m‐bm using SIMT‐VMAT treatments have shown positive clinical outcomes even with small residual patient setup errors. These clinical outcomes, while largely due to DCK, may also potentially be due to the ICK. Potential mechanisms, such as devascularization and/or radiation‐induced intratumor immune enhancement, should be explored to provide a better understanding of the radiobiological response of stereotactic radiosurgery of m‐bm using a SIMT‐VMAT plan.

SBRT treatment of abdominal and pelvic oligometastatic lymph nodes using ring-mounted Halcyon Linac

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

This work seeks to evaluate the plan quality, treatment delivery efficiency, and accuracy of single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic lymph nodes (LNs) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on Halcyon Linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After completing the in-house multitarget end-to-end phantom testing and independent dose verification using MD Anderson's single-isocenter/multi-target (lung and spine target inserts) thorax phantom, eight patients with two to three abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic LNs underwent highly conformal single-isocenter VMAT-SBRT treatment using the Halcyon Linac 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam. Targets were identified using an Axumin PET/CT scan co-registered with planning CT images and a single-isocenter was placed between/among the targets. Doses between 25 and 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were delivered. Patients were treated every other day. Plans were calculated in Eclipse with advanced AcurosXB algorithm for heterogeneity corrections. For comparison, Halcyon VMAT-SBRT plans were retrospectively generated for SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam with a 6MV-FFF beam using identical planning geometry and objectives. Target coverage, conformity index (CI), dose to 2 cm away from each target (D2cm) and dose to adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated. Additionally, various treatment delivery parameters including beam-on time were recorded.

RESULTS

Phantom measurements showed acceptable spatial accuracy of conebeam CT-guided Halcyon SBRT treatments including compliance with MD Anderson's single-isocenter/multi-targets phantom credentialing results. For patients, the mean isocenter to tumor center distance was 3.4 ± 1.2 cm (range, 1.5-4.8 cm). The mean combined PTV was 18.9 ± 10.9 cc (range, 5.6-39.5 cc). There was no clinically significant difference in dose to LNs, CI, D2cm and maximal doses to OAR between single-isocenter Halcyon and Truebeam VMAT-SBRT plans, although, Halcyon plans provided preferably lower maximal dose to adjacent OAR. Additionally, total monitor units, beam-on time and overall treatment time was lower with Halcyon plans. Halcyon's portal dosimetry demonstrated a high pass rate of 98.1 ± 1.6% for clinical gamma passing criteria of 2%/2 mm.

CONCLUSION

SBRT treatment of abdominal/pelvic oligometastatic LNs with single-isocenter VMAT on Halcyon was dosimetrically equivalent to TrueBeam. Faster treatment delivery to oligometastatic LNs via single-isocenter Halcyon VMAT can improve clinic workflow and patient compliance, potentially reducing intrafraction motion errors for well-suited patients. Clinical follow-up of these patients is ongoing.