Dosimetric characterization of hypofractionated Gamma Knife radiosurgery of large or complex brain tumors versus linear accelerator-based treatments

OBJECTIVE Noninvasive Gamma Knife (GK) platforms, such as the relocatable frame and on-board imaging, have enabled hypofractionated GK radiosurgery of large or complex brain lesions. This study aimed to characterize the dosimetric quality of such treatments against linear accelerator-based delivery systems that include the CyberKnife (CK) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS Ten patients treated with VMAT at the authors' institution for large brain tumors (> 3 cm in maximum diameter) were selected for the study. The median prescription dose was 25 Gy (range 20-30 Gy) in 5 fractions. The median planning target volume (PTV) was 9.57 cm³ (range 1.94-24.81 cm³). Treatment planning was performed using Eclipse External Beam Planning V11 for VMAT on the Varian TrueBeam system, Multiplan V4.5 for the CyberKnife VSI System, and Leksell GammaPlan V10.2 for the Gamma Knife Perfexion system. The percentage of the PTV receiving at least the prescription dose was normalized to be identical across all platforms for individual cases. The prescription isodose value for the PTV, conformity index, Paddick gradient index, mean and maximum doses for organs at risk, and normal brain dose at variable isodose volumes ranging from the 5-Gy isodose volume (V5) to the 15-Gy isodose volume (V15) were compared for all of the cases. RESULTS The mean Paddick gradient index was 2.6 ± 0.2, 3.2 ± 0.5, and 4.3 ± 1.0 for GK, CK, and VMAT, respectively (p < 0.002). The mean V15 was 7.5 ± 3.7 cm³ (range 1.53-13.29 cm³), 9.8 ± 5.5 cm³ (range 2.07-18.45 cm³), and 16.1 ± 10.6 cm³ (range 3.58-36.53 cm³) for GK, CK, and VMAT, respectively (p ≤ 0.03, paired 2-tailed t-tests). However, the average conformity index was 1.18, 1.12, and 1.21 for GK, CK, and VMAT, respectively (p > 0.06). The average prescription isodose values were 52% (range 47%-69%), 60% (range 46%-68%), and 88% (range 70%-94%) for GK, CK, and VMAT, respectively, thus producing significant variations in dose hot spots among the 3 platforms. Furthermore, the mean V5 values for GK and CK were similar (p > 0.79) at 71.9 ± 36.2 cm³ and 73.3 ± 31.8 cm³, respectively, both of which were statistically lower (p < 0.01) than the mean V5 value of 124.6 ± 67.1 cm³ for VMAT. CONCLUSIONS Significantly better near-target normal brain sparing was noted for hypofractionated GK radiosurgery versus linear accelerator-based treatments. Such a result supports the use of a large number of isocenters or confocal beams for the benefit of normal tissue sparing in hypofractionated brain radiosurgery.

Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone has become one of the treatment options for patients with 1-4 metastases as the detrimental effects of whole brain radiation therapy on neurocognition and quality of life are becoming well known. Multiple randomized control trials also failed to show overall survival benefit of adding whole brain radiation therapy to SRS. However, the role of SRS in multiple brain metastases, especially those with ≥ 4 tumors, remains controversial. The literature is emerging, and the limited evidence suggests that the local control benefit is independent of the number of metastases, and that patients with more than four brain metastases have similar overall survival compared to those with 2-4 tumors. This review aims at summarizing the current evidence of SRS for multiple brain metastases, divided into limited (2-3) and multiple (≥ 4) lesions. It also reviews the technical aspects and cost-effectiveness of SRS.

Variable dose interplay effects across radiosurgical apparatus in treating multiple brain metastases

Purpose

Normal brain tissue doses have been shown to be strongly apparatus dependent for multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery. In this study, we investigated whether inter-target dose interplay effects across contemporary radiosurgical treatment platforms are responsible for such an observation.

Methods

For the study, subsets (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$n = 3, 6, 9,$$\end{document}n=3,6,9, and 12) of a total of 12 targets were planned at six institutions. Treatment platforms included the (1) Gamma Knife Perfexion (PFX), (2) CyberKnife, (3) Novalis linear accelerator equipped with a 3.0-mm multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and the (4) Varian Truebeam flattening-filter-free (FFF) linear accelerator also equipped with a 2.5 mm MLC. Identical dose–volume constraints for the targets and critical structures were applied for each apparatus. All treatment plans were developed at individual centers, and the results were centrally analyzed.

Results

We found that dose–volume constraints were satisfied by each apparatus with some differences noted in certain structures such as the lens. The peripheral normal brain tissue doses were lowest for the PFX and highest for TrueBeam FFF and CyberKnife treatment plans. Comparing the volumes of normal brain receiving 12 Gy, TrueBeam FFF, Novalis, and CyberKnife were 180–290 % higher than PFX. The mean volume of normal brain-per target receiving 4-Gy increased by approximately 3.0 cc per target for TrueBeam, 2.7 cc per target for CyberKnife, 2.0 cc per target for Novalis, and 0.82 cc per target for PFX. The beam-on time was shortest with the TrueBeam FFF (e.g., 6–9 min at a machine output rate of 1,200 MU/min) and longest for the PFX (e.g., 50–150 mins at a machine output rate of 350 cGy/min).

Conclusion

The volumes of normal brain receiving 4 and 12 Gy were higher, and increased more swiftly per target, for Linac-based SRS platforms than for PFX. Treatment times were shortest with TrueBeam FFF.