검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords

Article

Split Viewer

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35(4): 155-162

Published online December 31, 2024

https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.155

Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.

Dosimetric Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. Dynamic Conformal Arc

Youngkuk Kim1,2 , Sangwook Lim1,3 , Ji Hoon Choi1,3 , Kyung Ran Park1,3

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence to:Sangwook Lim
(medicalphysics@hotmail.com)
Tel: 82-51-990-6393
Fax: 82-51-990-6480

Received: November 8, 2024; Revised: December 13, 2024; Accepted: December 16, 2024

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach.
Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency were evaluated using indices such as CILIM98, CIICRU, CIRTOG, QCRTOG, CISALT, HTCISALT, and CIPADDIC. These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA.
Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning target volumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy, exceeding 10 mL and failing to meet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units (MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG, demonstrated significant differences between VMAT and DCA.
Conclusions: Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan because DCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides the advantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

KeywordsStereotactic radiosurgery, Dynamic conformal arc, Volumetric modulated arc therapy, Conformity index, Treatment planning

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a noninvasive surgical technique that delivers a high dose of radiation in a single fraction. Enhanced precision in radiation therapy has led to the advancement of SRS techniques using a linear accelerator equipped with multileaf collimators (MLCs), instead of cones, allowing applications for primary and metastatic tumors in various organs. Numerous clinical studies have confirmed the effectiveness of this technique [1].

SRS for metastatic brain tumors was introduced before the development of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and protocols to ensure treatment outcomes have been continuously refined and implemented in clinical practice [2].

Clinical studies have shown that compared with other treatment methods for metastatic brain tumors, such as resection and whole-brain radiation therapy, SRS can offer favorable prognostic factors under certain conditions, including improved survival rates, lower recurrence rates, better local control, and preserved cognitive function [2-8]. Based on these findings, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has developed and recommended guidelines for SRS applications in treating metastatic brain tumors [9].

Clinical studies have also examined the side effects of high doses, focusing on the correlation between the radiation dose delivered to normal brain tissue and severe complications, such as radiation necrosis [10-13]. To minimize such side effects of SRS, both the clinical and physical characteristics of the patients must be considered [2].

Recent studies have shown that, for single brain metastases, applying MLC-based dynamic conformal arc (DCA) therapy can reduce the dose delivered to normal brain tissue compared with the cone-based CyberKnife (Accuray, Inc.) [14]. Studies comparing DCA and VMAT in stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) have shown no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between the two methods. However, in terms of physical characteristics, DCA demonstrated a higher planning target volume (PTV) coverage and gradient index, whereas VMAT showed a higher conformity index (CI) [15].

To maximize the effectiveness of SRS, the alignment between the tumor location defined in the planning and the patient’s position during treatment must be precise [16-18]. Unlike traditional SRS, which involves invasively securing the head with pins, in our institution, SRS is performed using a frameless fixation system. Therefore, to ensure positional accuracy, alignment was verified with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) before and after treatment.

Various indices have been developed and applied in clinical practice to quantitatively assess the quality of SRS treatment plans [19-21]. However, each index provides limited information depending on the parameters used, making it challenging to quantitatively assess the overall quality of a treatment plan with a single index. Therefore, the process of how each index can complement each other must be analyzed [19].

This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of MLC-based VMAT, used at our institution for treating metastatic brain tumors, with DCA through a retrospective analysis of previously treated patients. Multiple metastases were excluded from the analysis because of the inherent difficulty in equitably comparing DCA and VMAT in such cases.

1. Patients

This study analyzed 12 patients with single metastatic brain tumors who were treated with VMAT at Kosin University Gospel Hospital. Although multitarget SRS cases were also treated, only single-target cases were selected for comparison with the DCA plan. In these patients, lesions were classified into two groups according to size, following different guidelines: small PTV (<2 cm in diameter) and large PTV (≥3 cm in diameter) [6,9]. In this study, no patients had medium PTVs (≥2 to <3 cm in diameter) (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient characteristics

PatientPTV groupPTV in ccPTV in cm (diameter)Lesion siteNumber of field
1Small (<2 cm)2.801.7Left4
21.121.3Center5
32.281.6Center5
42.341.6Left4
50.951.2Right4
61.471.4Right4
72.481.7Left4
81.461.4Left4
91.521.4Left4
10Large (≥3 cm)27.823.8Center5
1117.513.2right5
1223.153.5Center5
MeanSmall1.821.5
Large22.833.5

To acquire CT images for treatment planning, scans were performed using Discovery RT (GE Healthcare Technologies, Inc.) with a CT slice thickness set to 1.25 mm. For SRS, the SolsticeTM SRS Immobilization System (CQ Medical Solutions) was utilized during image acquisition to minimize head movements from the start. A radiation oncologist delineated the gross tumor volume and PTV directly on the acquired treatment planning images.

2. Treatment planning

Identical parameters were applied for both the VMAT and DCA plans. The prescription dose was set based on tumor size, with 24 Gy for small and 15 Gy for large PTVs. Normalization was performed to ensure that the prescribed dose covered at least 90% of the PTV.

VMAT and DCA treatment plans were created in Eclipse V13.0 (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.), with a 0.125-cm dose calculation grid, using a single isocenter noncoplanar field (Fig. 1) and 6 flattening filter free (FFF) energy. The VMAT treatment plan was used for radiation delivery with the TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.), whereas the DCA plan was generated for comparison. The couch and gantry angles, along with the number of fields, and the field weights were optimized for each plan based on the tumor’s 3-dimensional position.

Figure 1.Example of the plan geometry for one of the 12 patients. For the centrally located PTV, both the VMAT and DCA plans utilized five evenly distributed arc fields optimized for uniform dose delivery. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.

For VMAT plans, inverse planning was employed to ensure that at least 90% of the prescribed dose covered the PTV while minimizing the dose to normal brain tissue. The plan evaluation was based on the criterion that the V12Gy of the brain minus the PTV should remain within 10 cc.

The DCA plan was created using the same geometric parameters as the original VMAT treatment plan, excluding the MLC, namely, the isocenter, gantry and couch angles, 6FFF energy, number of fields, field weights, and definitions for the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). Unlike VMAT, where the MLC is modulated during treatment, DCA uses forward planning with a dynamic MLC that adjusts based on the PTV shape as the gantry rotates, ensuring that the middle position of each multileaf aligns with the 2-dimensional boundary of the PTV.

3. Evaluation and comparison

To quantitatively compare inverse-planned VMAT and forward-planned DCA techniques, the dose–volume histogram (DVH), brain minus PTV, total monitor unit (MU), and various indices commonly used for clinical evaluation in SRS treatment planning, including CILIM98, CIICRU, CIRTOG, quality of coverage (QC)RTOG, CISALT, healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI)SALT, and CIPADDIC, were analyzed (Table 2). These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate differences between VMAT and DCA. Considering the sample size of 12, the Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to examine normality. Because the data did not satisfy the normality assumption, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied.

Table 2 Various indices for evaluating plans

GroupIndexParameter
ICRUConformity index=CIICRUV95%/PTVV95%: volume of the 95% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
LIMConformity index=CILIM98TVPIV98%/PTVTVPIV98%: target volume covered by the 98% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
RTOGConformity index=CIRTOGPIV/PTVPIV: volume of the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Quality of coverage=QCRTOGD100%/PDD100%: minimal isodose surrounding the target
PD: prescribed isodose
SALTConformity index=CISALTTVPIV/PTVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Healthy tissue conformity index=HTCISALTTVPIV/PIVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PIV: volume of the reference isodose
OtherPaddick’s conformity index=CIPADDICTVPIV2/PTV×PIVPTV: planning target volume
PIV: volume of the reference isodose

The results of the retrospective comparison of the VMAT and DCA treatment plans for patients treated with VMAT are shown in Table 3. For CISALT, which was proposed by the SALT group, both VMAT and DCA exhibited the same values of 0.9, as dose normalization was performed to ensure that 90% of the dose was delivered to the PTV during treatment planning.

Table 3 Comparison of VMAT and DCA plans

PatientPTV groupVMAT/DCA

CIICRUCILIM98CIRTOGCISALTHTCISALTCIPADDICQCRTOGV12Gy in cc (brain minus PTV)MU
1Small (<2 cm)1.21/1.490.99/0.960.91/1.150.90/0.900.98/0.780.89/0.700.92/0.946.00/7.265,610/3,179
21.27/1.620.99/0.950.93/1.140.90/0.900.96/0.790.87/0.710.93/0.913.48/4.435,635/3,492
31.22/1.450.99/0.960.91/1.050.90/0.900.99/0.850.89/0.770.92/0.945.85/7.086,309/3,773
41.15/1.460.98/0.980.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.90/0.955.05/6.596,071/3,419
51.24/1.350.98/0.960.92/0.980.90/0.900.97/0.920.88/0.830.94/0.933.57/4.156,437/3,521
61.17/1.510.98/0.970.91/1.070.90/0.900.99/0.840.89/0.760.92/0.953.67/5.146,201/3,512
71.17/1.470.99/0.960.90/1.130.90/0.901.00/0.800.90/0.720.93/0.945.65/7.406,416/3,125
81.15/1.310.97/0.960.90/0.980.90/0.901.00/0.920.90/0.830.93/0.934.33/5.607,752/3,449
91.22/1.440.96/0.950.94/1.070.90/0.900.96/0.840.86/0.760.91/0.914.80/6.439,196/3,442
10Large (≥3 cm)1.07/1.320.95/0.950.92/1.120.90/0.900.98/0.800.88/0.720.87/0.919.23/15.183,972/2,090
111.13/1.390.99/0.950.93/1.160.90/0.900.96/0.780.87/0.700.94/0.897.66/14.444,451/1,996
121.10/1.260.99/0.970.90/1.020.90/0.901.00/0.880.90/0.790.91/0.939.14/11.764,209/2,202
MeanSmall1.18/1.420.98/0.960.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.92/0.934.71/6.016,625/3,435
Large8.68/13.804,211/2,096
P-value<0.001*0.005*<0.001*NA<0.001*<0.001*0.261<0.001*<0.001*

The ClLIM98, representing the ratio of the volume receiving 98% of the prescribed dose within the PTV, was 0.98 for VMAT and 0.96 for DCA, showing a significant difference.

The CIICRU and CIRTOG indices, which quantify the ratio of the prescribed dose–volume to the PTV, were 1.18 and 1.42 for CIICRU (based on volume of the 95% reference isodose) and 0.92 and 1.08 for CIRTOG (based onvolume of the 100% reference isodose) in VMAT and DCA, respectively. Accordingly, both CIICRU and CIRTOG were significantly higher in DCA than in VMAT.

The mean values of HTCISALT, which provides indirect information on the dose delivered to normal brain tissue, were 0.98 and 0.84 for VMAT and DCA, respectively. This significant difference indicates that compared with VMAT, DCA delivered a higher dose to normal brain tissue.

For mean values of QCRTOG, which represents the minimum dose delivered to the PTV volume, were 0.92 and 0.93 for VMAT and DCA, respectively, showing no significant difference.

For the brain minus PTV, representing normal brain tissue receiving doses >12 Gy, the mean V12Gy values for VMAT and DCA were 4.71 and 6.01 cc for small PTV and 8.68 and 13.80 cc for large PTV, respectively. This indicates that the DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy, exceeding 10 cc and failing to meet the criteria (<10 cc). Fig. 2 shows the DVH of the brain minus PTV for both VMAT and DCA with small PTVs.

Figure 2.Dose–volume histogram of the brain minus PTV in the absolute volume for patient 1. The black solid line represents VMAT, and the red dotted line represents DCA. V12Gy values of the brain minus PTV are 6.00 cc for VMAT and 7.26 cc for DCA. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.

The MUs for VMAT plans were 6,625 for small PTVs and 4,211 for large PTVs, compared with 3,435 and 2,096 MU for DCA plans, respectively. Overall, the MU for VMAT plans was nearly twice as high as that of DCA plans.

The frameless fixation system used at our institution demonstrated errors within an acceptable range when comparing the pre- and posttreatment alignment. Minniti et al. [18] demonstrated that the positional accuracy of tumors between frame-based and frameless setups is within 1–2 mm, whereas He et al. [16] reported clinical findings showing no significant differences in treatment outcomes between the two methods. However, careful consideration is necessary when using the frameless approach, as deviations >3 mm have occasionally been reported [16-18].

Molinier et al. [22] compared VMAT and DCA to evaluate their dosimetric advantages for single lesions, multiple lesions, and lesions located near OARs. The study demonstrated that DCA provided better sparing of healthy brain tissue than VMAT for single metastases. However, VMAT was more advantageous for treating multiple metastases and targets located near OARs [22].

Torizuka et al. [23] compared VMAT created using both coplanar and noncoplanar beams and DCA plans created using noncoplanar beams for the treatment of single metastases. They found that VMAT with noncoplanar beams can save more normal brain tissue than DCA. However, the VMAT technique required a higher number of MUs, potentially increasing the workload for the medical staff [23].

Kuperman et al. reported that compared with DCA, VMAT demonstrated superior dosimetric outcomes in terms of the CI. However, no significant correlations were found between the CI of normal brain tissue and V10Gy or V12Gy. Therefore, DCA could be considered an alternative to VMAT in certain clinical situations [24].

At our institution, CILIM98 offers a simplified evaluation of SRS treatment plans by calculating the ratio of the volume enclosed by the 98% prescription isodose line to the PTV. This index, assessed with a reference value of 1, provides a clear measure of target coverage with a single metric. In this study, the CILIM98 of VMAT showed better dose coverage of the PTV compared with that of DCA.

CIICRU and CIRTOG were calculated as the ratio of the volume enclosed by the prescription isodose line to the tumor volume. A value of 1–2 is considered suitable for treatment plan quality, whereas values <0.9 or >2.5 are deemed unsuitable. In this study, the values of CIICRU and CIRTOG met the criteria for both VMAT and DCA. However, there are limitations. First, although the indices provide information on the dose coverage to the tumor, they do not allow for a precise correlation between the index values and clinical outcomes. Second, the exact reference isodose level for the contour, such as the 95% or 100% isodose line, is challenging to clinically determine for the volume of the reference isodose.

CISALT was calculated as the ratio of the tumor volume to the volume of the prescription isodose line within the tumor. A value of 1 is considered ideal for treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are deemed acceptable. However, this index does not provide information on the dose delivered to adjacent healthy tissues.

HTCISALT was calculated as the ratio of the prescription isodose volume within the tumor to the total prescription isodose volume. This index provides indirect information on the dose delivered to normal tissues. A value of 1 is considered ideal for treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are deemed unsuitable. In this study, HTCISALT showed that compared with VMAT, DCA delivered a higher dose to normal brain tissue, a result also reflected in the V12Gy of the brain minus PTV. However, this index does not directly reflect the dose delivered to the tumor itself. For example, even if the index is calculated as 1, the dose delivered to the tumor may not be 100%.

CIPADDIC is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the dose distribution to both the tumor and surrounding normal tissue. This index, which was proposed by the SALT group, is calculated by multiplying the dose coverage of the tumor by the dose distribution to normal tissue. A value of 1 indicates ideal treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are considered unsuitable. This index allows the indirect assessment of dose information for both the tumor and normal tissues. However, if the index is 0.6, it is unclear whether this reflects an underdose to the tumor with normal tissue sparing or an underdose to both the tumor and normal tissues. In this study, the values for this index were found to be acceptable for both VMAT and DCA.

QCRTOG is calculated as the ratio of the minimum isodose level covering the entire tumor volume to the prescribed dose. In this study, this index was not able to distinguish between the two plans. The MU used in DCA can be reduced by approximately 40%–50% compared with that in VMAT, allowing for a shorter treatment time with DCA.

These indices alone should not be used to clinically assess the quality of treatment plans. In SRT (23.1 Gy/3 fractions), a comparison of clinical outcomes between the DCA and VMAT groups did not reveal differences in clinical outcomes (toxicity, local control, and overall survival) between the two methods; however, further research is needed to explore the clinical correlation between DCA and VMAT [15]. Similarly, for SRS, additional studies are likely necessary to investigate the clinical correlation between DCA and VMAT.

Our institution verified the patient setup using CBCT before and after treatment to confirm whether any movements occurred during the SRS session with a frameless fixation system. This process ensures the reliability of the frameless fixation system.

In most plan quality indices, significant differences were found between VMAT and DCA; however, which plan is superior in treatment outcomes based on specific CI values alone is challenging to determine. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the various indices is necessary.

For large PTVs, careful consideration is necessary when choosing a plan, as DCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV exceeding 10 cc. Conversely, DCA provides the advantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate combination of indices for a robust quantitative assessment of treatment plans.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors.

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Conceptualization: Sangwook Lim. Data curation: Youngkuk Kim. Formal analysis: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Investigation: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Methodology: Sangwook Lim. Supervision: Sangwook Lim. Validation: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim, Kyung Ran Park, Ji Hoon Choi. Visualization: Sangwook Lim. Writing – original draft: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Writing – review & editing: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim, Kyung Ran Park, Ji Hoon Choi.

  1. Deodato F, Cilla S, Macchia G, Torre G, Caravatta L, Mariano G, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): interim results of a multi-arm phase I trial (DESTROY-2). Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26:748-756.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:1231-1239.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Ladbury C, Pennock M, Yilmaz T, Ankrah NK, Andraos T, Gogineni E, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases: a case-based radiosurgery society practice guideline. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023;9:101402.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Soffietti R, Rudà R, Trevisan E. Brain metastases: current management and new developments. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20:676-684.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Grishchuk D, Dimitriadis A, Sahgal A, De Salles A, Fariselli L, Kotecha R, et al. ISRS technical guidelines for Stereotactic Radiosurgery: treatment of small brain metastases (≤1 cm in diameter). Pract Radiat Oncol. 2023;13:183-194.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, Dinapoli R, Kline R, Loeffler J, et al. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:291-298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Lehrer EJ, Peterson JL, Zaorsky NG, Brown PD, Sahgal A, Chiang VL, et al. Single versus multifraction stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases: an international meta-analysis of 24 trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103:618-630.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Chang EL, Selek U, Hassenbusch SJ 3rd, Maor MH, Allen PK, Mahajan A, et al. Outcome variation among "radioresistant" brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:936-945.discussion 936-945.
  9. Schiff D, Messersmith H, Brastianos PK, Brown PD, Burri S, Dunn IF, et al. Radiation therapy for brain metastases: ASCO guideline endorsement of ASTRO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:2271-2276.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Kassam A, Phuong LK, Liscak R, et al. Development of a model to predict permanent symptomatic postradiosurgery injury for arteriovenous malformation patients. Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgery Study Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:1143-1148.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, Lamba MA, Warnick RE, Breneman JC. Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:996-1001.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Lee J, Kim HJ, Kim WC. CyberKnife-based stereotactic radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in older patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2023;41:258-266.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Fiagbedzi E, Hasford F, Tagoe SN. Impact of planning target volume margins in stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastasis: a review. Prog Med Phys. 2024;35:1-9.
    CrossRef
  14. Oshiro Y, Mizumoto M, Kato Y, Tsuchida Y, Tsuboi K, Sakae T, et al. Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2024;29:100235.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Chambrelant I, Jarnet D, Le Fèvre C, Kuntz L, Jacob J, Jenny C, et al. Comparative study of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for treating single brain metastases: a retrospective analysis of dosimetric and clinical outcomes. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024;30:100591.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. He Z, Ho MKJ, Lee WYV, Law HY, Wong YWV, Leung TW, et al. Frameless versus frame-based stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: a propensity-matched analysis. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2023;41:100642.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Wen N, Snyder KC, Scheib SG, Schmelzer P, Qin Y, Li H, et al. Technical note: evaluation of the systematic accuracy of a frameless, multiple image modality guided, linear accelerator based stereotactic radiosurgery system. Med Phys. 2016;43:2527.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Clarke E, Valeriani M, Osti M, Enrici RM. Frameless linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases: analysis of patient repositioning using a mask fixation system and clinical outcomes. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:158.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron JJ, Bey P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:333-342.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Stanley J, Breitman K, Dunscombe P, Spencer DP, Lau H. Evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery conformity indices for 170 target volumes in patients with brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12:245-253.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93 Suppl 3:219-222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Molinier J, Kerr C, Simeon S, Ailleres N, Charissoux M, Azria D, et al. Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:92-101.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  23. Torizuka D, Uto M, Takehana K, Mizowaki T. Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis. J Radiat Res. 2021;62:1114-1119.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Kuperman VY, Altundal Y, Kandel S, Kouskoulas TN. Dose conformity and falloff in single-lesion intracranial SRS with DCA and VMAT methods. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25:e14415.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35(4): 155-162

Published online December 31, 2024 https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.155

Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.

Dosimetric Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. Dynamic Conformal Arc

Youngkuk Kim1,2 , Sangwook Lim1,3 , Ji Hoon Choi1,3 , Kyung Ran Park1,3

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence to:Sangwook Lim
(medicalphysics@hotmail.com)
Tel: 82-51-990-6393
Fax: 82-51-990-6480

Received: November 8, 2024; Revised: December 13, 2024; Accepted: December 16, 2024

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach.
Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency were evaluated using indices such as CILIM98, CIICRU, CIRTOG, QCRTOG, CISALT, HTCISALT, and CIPADDIC. These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA.
Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning target volumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy, exceeding 10 mL and failing to meet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units (MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG, demonstrated significant differences between VMAT and DCA.
Conclusions: Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan because DCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides the advantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Keywords: Stereotactic radiosurgery, Dynamic conformal arc, Volumetric modulated arc therapy, Conformity index, Treatment planning

Introduction

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a noninvasive surgical technique that delivers a high dose of radiation in a single fraction. Enhanced precision in radiation therapy has led to the advancement of SRS techniques using a linear accelerator equipped with multileaf collimators (MLCs), instead of cones, allowing applications for primary and metastatic tumors in various organs. Numerous clinical studies have confirmed the effectiveness of this technique [1].

SRS for metastatic brain tumors was introduced before the development of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and protocols to ensure treatment outcomes have been continuously refined and implemented in clinical practice [2].

Clinical studies have shown that compared with other treatment methods for metastatic brain tumors, such as resection and whole-brain radiation therapy, SRS can offer favorable prognostic factors under certain conditions, including improved survival rates, lower recurrence rates, better local control, and preserved cognitive function [2-8]. Based on these findings, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has developed and recommended guidelines for SRS applications in treating metastatic brain tumors [9].

Clinical studies have also examined the side effects of high doses, focusing on the correlation between the radiation dose delivered to normal brain tissue and severe complications, such as radiation necrosis [10-13]. To minimize such side effects of SRS, both the clinical and physical characteristics of the patients must be considered [2].

Recent studies have shown that, for single brain metastases, applying MLC-based dynamic conformal arc (DCA) therapy can reduce the dose delivered to normal brain tissue compared with the cone-based CyberKnife (Accuray, Inc.) [14]. Studies comparing DCA and VMAT in stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) have shown no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between the two methods. However, in terms of physical characteristics, DCA demonstrated a higher planning target volume (PTV) coverage and gradient index, whereas VMAT showed a higher conformity index (CI) [15].

To maximize the effectiveness of SRS, the alignment between the tumor location defined in the planning and the patient’s position during treatment must be precise [16-18]. Unlike traditional SRS, which involves invasively securing the head with pins, in our institution, SRS is performed using a frameless fixation system. Therefore, to ensure positional accuracy, alignment was verified with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) before and after treatment.

Various indices have been developed and applied in clinical practice to quantitatively assess the quality of SRS treatment plans [19-21]. However, each index provides limited information depending on the parameters used, making it challenging to quantitatively assess the overall quality of a treatment plan with a single index. Therefore, the process of how each index can complement each other must be analyzed [19].

This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of MLC-based VMAT, used at our institution for treating metastatic brain tumors, with DCA through a retrospective analysis of previously treated patients. Multiple metastases were excluded from the analysis because of the inherent difficulty in equitably comparing DCA and VMAT in such cases.

Material and Methods

1. Patients

This study analyzed 12 patients with single metastatic brain tumors who were treated with VMAT at Kosin University Gospel Hospital. Although multitarget SRS cases were also treated, only single-target cases were selected for comparison with the DCA plan. In these patients, lesions were classified into two groups according to size, following different guidelines: small PTV (<2 cm in diameter) and large PTV (≥3 cm in diameter) [6,9]. In this study, no patients had medium PTVs (≥2 to <3 cm in diameter) (Table 1).

Table 1 . Patient characteristics.

PatientPTV groupPTV in ccPTV in cm (diameter)Lesion siteNumber of field
1Small (<2 cm)2.801.7Left4
21.121.3Center5
32.281.6Center5
42.341.6Left4
50.951.2Right4
61.471.4Right4
72.481.7Left4
81.461.4Left4
91.521.4Left4
10Large (≥3 cm)27.823.8Center5
1117.513.2right5
1223.153.5Center5
MeanSmall1.821.5
Large22.833.5


To acquire CT images for treatment planning, scans were performed using Discovery RT (GE Healthcare Technologies, Inc.) with a CT slice thickness set to 1.25 mm. For SRS, the SolsticeTM SRS Immobilization System (CQ Medical Solutions) was utilized during image acquisition to minimize head movements from the start. A radiation oncologist delineated the gross tumor volume and PTV directly on the acquired treatment planning images.

2. Treatment planning

Identical parameters were applied for both the VMAT and DCA plans. The prescription dose was set based on tumor size, with 24 Gy for small and 15 Gy for large PTVs. Normalization was performed to ensure that the prescribed dose covered at least 90% of the PTV.

VMAT and DCA treatment plans were created in Eclipse V13.0 (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.), with a 0.125-cm dose calculation grid, using a single isocenter noncoplanar field (Fig. 1) and 6 flattening filter free (FFF) energy. The VMAT treatment plan was used for radiation delivery with the TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.), whereas the DCA plan was generated for comparison. The couch and gantry angles, along with the number of fields, and the field weights were optimized for each plan based on the tumor’s 3-dimensional position.

Figure 1. Example of the plan geometry for one of the 12 patients. For the centrally located PTV, both the VMAT and DCA plans utilized five evenly distributed arc fields optimized for uniform dose delivery. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.

For VMAT plans, inverse planning was employed to ensure that at least 90% of the prescribed dose covered the PTV while minimizing the dose to normal brain tissue. The plan evaluation was based on the criterion that the V12Gy of the brain minus the PTV should remain within 10 cc.

The DCA plan was created using the same geometric parameters as the original VMAT treatment plan, excluding the MLC, namely, the isocenter, gantry and couch angles, 6FFF energy, number of fields, field weights, and definitions for the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). Unlike VMAT, where the MLC is modulated during treatment, DCA uses forward planning with a dynamic MLC that adjusts based on the PTV shape as the gantry rotates, ensuring that the middle position of each multileaf aligns with the 2-dimensional boundary of the PTV.

3. Evaluation and comparison

To quantitatively compare inverse-planned VMAT and forward-planned DCA techniques, the dose–volume histogram (DVH), brain minus PTV, total monitor unit (MU), and various indices commonly used for clinical evaluation in SRS treatment planning, including CILIM98, CIICRU, CIRTOG, quality of coverage (QC)RTOG, CISALT, healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI)SALT, and CIPADDIC, were analyzed (Table 2). These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate differences between VMAT and DCA. Considering the sample size of 12, the Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to examine normality. Because the data did not satisfy the normality assumption, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied.

Table 2 . Various indices for evaluating plans.

GroupIndexParameter
ICRUConformity index=CIICRUV95%/PTVV95%: volume of the 95% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
LIMConformity index=CILIM98TVPIV98%/PTVTVPIV98%: target volume covered by the 98% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
RTOGConformity index=CIRTOGPIV/PTVPIV: volume of the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Quality of coverage=QCRTOGD100%/PDD100%: minimal isodose surrounding the target
PD: prescribed isodose
SALTConformity index=CISALTTVPIV/PTVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Healthy tissue conformity index=HTCISALTTVPIV/PIVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PIV: volume of the reference isodose
OtherPaddick’s conformity index=CIPADDICTVPIV2/PTV×PIVPTV: planning target volume
PIV: volume of the reference isodose

Results

The results of the retrospective comparison of the VMAT and DCA treatment plans for patients treated with VMAT are shown in Table 3. For CISALT, which was proposed by the SALT group, both VMAT and DCA exhibited the same values of 0.9, as dose normalization was performed to ensure that 90% of the dose was delivered to the PTV during treatment planning.

Table 3 . Comparison of VMAT and DCA plans.

PatientPTV groupVMAT/DCA

CIICRUCILIM98CIRTOGCISALTHTCISALTCIPADDICQCRTOGV12Gy in cc (brain minus PTV)MU
1Small (<2 cm)1.21/1.490.99/0.960.91/1.150.90/0.900.98/0.780.89/0.700.92/0.946.00/7.265,610/3,179
21.27/1.620.99/0.950.93/1.140.90/0.900.96/0.790.87/0.710.93/0.913.48/4.435,635/3,492
31.22/1.450.99/0.960.91/1.050.90/0.900.99/0.850.89/0.770.92/0.945.85/7.086,309/3,773
41.15/1.460.98/0.980.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.90/0.955.05/6.596,071/3,419
51.24/1.350.98/0.960.92/0.980.90/0.900.97/0.920.88/0.830.94/0.933.57/4.156,437/3,521
61.17/1.510.98/0.970.91/1.070.90/0.900.99/0.840.89/0.760.92/0.953.67/5.146,201/3,512
71.17/1.470.99/0.960.90/1.130.90/0.901.00/0.800.90/0.720.93/0.945.65/7.406,416/3,125
81.15/1.310.97/0.960.90/0.980.90/0.901.00/0.920.90/0.830.93/0.934.33/5.607,752/3,449
91.22/1.440.96/0.950.94/1.070.90/0.900.96/0.840.86/0.760.91/0.914.80/6.439,196/3,442
10Large (≥3 cm)1.07/1.320.95/0.950.92/1.120.90/0.900.98/0.800.88/0.720.87/0.919.23/15.183,972/2,090
111.13/1.390.99/0.950.93/1.160.90/0.900.96/0.780.87/0.700.94/0.897.66/14.444,451/1,996
121.10/1.260.99/0.970.90/1.020.90/0.901.00/0.880.90/0.790.91/0.939.14/11.764,209/2,202
MeanSmall1.18/1.420.98/0.960.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.92/0.934.71/6.016,625/3,435
Large8.68/13.804,211/2,096
P-value<0.001*0.005*<0.001*NA<0.001*<0.001*0.261<0.001*<0.001*


The ClLIM98, representing the ratio of the volume receiving 98% of the prescribed dose within the PTV, was 0.98 for VMAT and 0.96 for DCA, showing a significant difference.

The CIICRU and CIRTOG indices, which quantify the ratio of the prescribed dose–volume to the PTV, were 1.18 and 1.42 for CIICRU (based on volume of the 95% reference isodose) and 0.92 and 1.08 for CIRTOG (based onvolume of the 100% reference isodose) in VMAT and DCA, respectively. Accordingly, both CIICRU and CIRTOG were significantly higher in DCA than in VMAT.

The mean values of HTCISALT, which provides indirect information on the dose delivered to normal brain tissue, were 0.98 and 0.84 for VMAT and DCA, respectively. This significant difference indicates that compared with VMAT, DCA delivered a higher dose to normal brain tissue.

For mean values of QCRTOG, which represents the minimum dose delivered to the PTV volume, were 0.92 and 0.93 for VMAT and DCA, respectively, showing no significant difference.

For the brain minus PTV, representing normal brain tissue receiving doses >12 Gy, the mean V12Gy values for VMAT and DCA were 4.71 and 6.01 cc for small PTV and 8.68 and 13.80 cc for large PTV, respectively. This indicates that the DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy, exceeding 10 cc and failing to meet the criteria (<10 cc). Fig. 2 shows the DVH of the brain minus PTV for both VMAT and DCA with small PTVs.

Figure 2. Dose–volume histogram of the brain minus PTV in the absolute volume for patient 1. The black solid line represents VMAT, and the red dotted line represents DCA. V12Gy values of the brain minus PTV are 6.00 cc for VMAT and 7.26 cc for DCA. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.

The MUs for VMAT plans were 6,625 for small PTVs and 4,211 for large PTVs, compared with 3,435 and 2,096 MU for DCA plans, respectively. Overall, the MU for VMAT plans was nearly twice as high as that of DCA plans.

Discussion

The frameless fixation system used at our institution demonstrated errors within an acceptable range when comparing the pre- and posttreatment alignment. Minniti et al. [18] demonstrated that the positional accuracy of tumors between frame-based and frameless setups is within 1–2 mm, whereas He et al. [16] reported clinical findings showing no significant differences in treatment outcomes between the two methods. However, careful consideration is necessary when using the frameless approach, as deviations >3 mm have occasionally been reported [16-18].

Molinier et al. [22] compared VMAT and DCA to evaluate their dosimetric advantages for single lesions, multiple lesions, and lesions located near OARs. The study demonstrated that DCA provided better sparing of healthy brain tissue than VMAT for single metastases. However, VMAT was more advantageous for treating multiple metastases and targets located near OARs [22].

Torizuka et al. [23] compared VMAT created using both coplanar and noncoplanar beams and DCA plans created using noncoplanar beams for the treatment of single metastases. They found that VMAT with noncoplanar beams can save more normal brain tissue than DCA. However, the VMAT technique required a higher number of MUs, potentially increasing the workload for the medical staff [23].

Kuperman et al. reported that compared with DCA, VMAT demonstrated superior dosimetric outcomes in terms of the CI. However, no significant correlations were found between the CI of normal brain tissue and V10Gy or V12Gy. Therefore, DCA could be considered an alternative to VMAT in certain clinical situations [24].

At our institution, CILIM98 offers a simplified evaluation of SRS treatment plans by calculating the ratio of the volume enclosed by the 98% prescription isodose line to the PTV. This index, assessed with a reference value of 1, provides a clear measure of target coverage with a single metric. In this study, the CILIM98 of VMAT showed better dose coverage of the PTV compared with that of DCA.

CIICRU and CIRTOG were calculated as the ratio of the volume enclosed by the prescription isodose line to the tumor volume. A value of 1–2 is considered suitable for treatment plan quality, whereas values <0.9 or >2.5 are deemed unsuitable. In this study, the values of CIICRU and CIRTOG met the criteria for both VMAT and DCA. However, there are limitations. First, although the indices provide information on the dose coverage to the tumor, they do not allow for a precise correlation between the index values and clinical outcomes. Second, the exact reference isodose level for the contour, such as the 95% or 100% isodose line, is challenging to clinically determine for the volume of the reference isodose.

CISALT was calculated as the ratio of the tumor volume to the volume of the prescription isodose line within the tumor. A value of 1 is considered ideal for treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are deemed acceptable. However, this index does not provide information on the dose delivered to adjacent healthy tissues.

HTCISALT was calculated as the ratio of the prescription isodose volume within the tumor to the total prescription isodose volume. This index provides indirect information on the dose delivered to normal tissues. A value of 1 is considered ideal for treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are deemed unsuitable. In this study, HTCISALT showed that compared with VMAT, DCA delivered a higher dose to normal brain tissue, a result also reflected in the V12Gy of the brain minus PTV. However, this index does not directly reflect the dose delivered to the tumor itself. For example, even if the index is calculated as 1, the dose delivered to the tumor may not be 100%.

CIPADDIC is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the dose distribution to both the tumor and surrounding normal tissue. This index, which was proposed by the SALT group, is calculated by multiplying the dose coverage of the tumor by the dose distribution to normal tissue. A value of 1 indicates ideal treatment plan quality, whereas values of ≤0.6 are considered unsuitable. This index allows the indirect assessment of dose information for both the tumor and normal tissues. However, if the index is 0.6, it is unclear whether this reflects an underdose to the tumor with normal tissue sparing or an underdose to both the tumor and normal tissues. In this study, the values for this index were found to be acceptable for both VMAT and DCA.

QCRTOG is calculated as the ratio of the minimum isodose level covering the entire tumor volume to the prescribed dose. In this study, this index was not able to distinguish between the two plans. The MU used in DCA can be reduced by approximately 40%–50% compared with that in VMAT, allowing for a shorter treatment time with DCA.

These indices alone should not be used to clinically assess the quality of treatment plans. In SRT (23.1 Gy/3 fractions), a comparison of clinical outcomes between the DCA and VMAT groups did not reveal differences in clinical outcomes (toxicity, local control, and overall survival) between the two methods; however, further research is needed to explore the clinical correlation between DCA and VMAT [15]. Similarly, for SRS, additional studies are likely necessary to investigate the clinical correlation between DCA and VMAT.

Conclusions

Our institution verified the patient setup using CBCT before and after treatment to confirm whether any movements occurred during the SRS session with a frameless fixation system. This process ensures the reliability of the frameless fixation system.

In most plan quality indices, significant differences were found between VMAT and DCA; however, which plan is superior in treatment outcomes based on specific CI values alone is challenging to determine. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the various indices is necessary.

For large PTVs, careful consideration is necessary when choosing a plan, as DCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV exceeding 10 cc. Conversely, DCA provides the advantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate combination of indices for a robust quantitative assessment of treatment plans.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Availability of Data and Materials

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Sangwook Lim. Data curation: Youngkuk Kim. Formal analysis: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Investigation: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Methodology: Sangwook Lim. Supervision: Sangwook Lim. Validation: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim, Kyung Ran Park, Ji Hoon Choi. Visualization: Sangwook Lim. Writing – original draft: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim. Writing – review & editing: Sangwook Lim, Youngkuk Kim, Kyung Ran Park, Ji Hoon Choi.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Example of the plan geometry for one of the 12 patients. For the centrally located PTV, both the VMAT and DCA plans utilized five evenly distributed arc fields optimized for uniform dose delivery. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.
Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35: 155-162https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.155

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Dose–volume histogram of the brain minus PTV in the absolute volume for patient 1. The black solid line represents VMAT, and the red dotted line represents DCA. V12Gy values of the brain minus PTV are 6.00 cc for VMAT and 7.26 cc for DCA. PTV, planning target volume; VMAT, volumetric modulated arc therapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc.
Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35: 155-162https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.155

Table 1 Patient characteristics

PatientPTV groupPTV in ccPTV in cm (diameter)Lesion siteNumber of field
1Small (<2 cm)2.801.7Left4
21.121.3Center5
32.281.6Center5
42.341.6Left4
50.951.2Right4
61.471.4Right4
72.481.7Left4
81.461.4Left4
91.521.4Left4
10Large (≥3 cm)27.823.8Center5
1117.513.2right5
1223.153.5Center5
MeanSmall1.821.5
Large22.833.5

Table 2 Various indices for evaluating plans

GroupIndexParameter
ICRUConformity index=CIICRUV95%/PTVV95%: volume of the 95% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
LIMConformity index=CILIM98TVPIV98%/PTVTVPIV98%: target volume covered by the 98% reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
RTOGConformity index=CIRTOGPIV/PTVPIV: volume of the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Quality of coverage=QCRTOGD100%/PDD100%: minimal isodose surrounding the target
PD: prescribed isodose
SALTConformity index=CISALTTVPIV/PTVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PTV: planning target volume
Healthy tissue conformity index=HTCISALTTVPIV/PIVTVPIV: target volume covered by the reference isodose
PIV: volume of the reference isodose
OtherPaddick’s conformity index=CIPADDICTVPIV2/PTV×PIVPTV: planning target volume
PIV: volume of the reference isodose

Table 3 Comparison of VMAT and DCA plans

PatientPTV groupVMAT/DCA

CIICRUCILIM98CIRTOGCISALTHTCISALTCIPADDICQCRTOGV12Gy in cc (brain minus PTV)MU
1Small (<2 cm)1.21/1.490.99/0.960.91/1.150.90/0.900.98/0.780.89/0.700.92/0.946.00/7.265,610/3,179
21.27/1.620.99/0.950.93/1.140.90/0.900.96/0.790.87/0.710.93/0.913.48/4.435,635/3,492
31.22/1.450.99/0.960.91/1.050.90/0.900.99/0.850.89/0.770.92/0.945.85/7.086,309/3,773
41.15/1.460.98/0.980.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.90/0.955.05/6.596,071/3,419
51.24/1.350.98/0.960.92/0.980.90/0.900.97/0.920.88/0.830.94/0.933.57/4.156,437/3,521
61.17/1.510.98/0.970.91/1.070.90/0.900.99/0.840.89/0.760.92/0.953.67/5.146,201/3,512
71.17/1.470.99/0.960.90/1.130.90/0.901.00/0.800.90/0.720.93/0.945.65/7.406,416/3,125
81.15/1.310.97/0.960.90/0.980.90/0.901.00/0.920.90/0.830.93/0.934.33/5.607,752/3,449
91.22/1.440.96/0.950.94/1.070.90/0.900.96/0.840.86/0.760.91/0.914.80/6.439,196/3,442
10Large (≥3 cm)1.07/1.320.95/0.950.92/1.120.90/0.900.98/0.800.88/0.720.87/0.919.23/15.183,972/2,090
111.13/1.390.99/0.950.93/1.160.90/0.900.96/0.780.87/0.700.94/0.897.66/14.444,451/1,996
121.10/1.260.99/0.970.90/1.020.90/0.901.00/0.880.90/0.790.91/0.939.14/11.764,209/2,202
MeanSmall1.18/1.420.98/0.960.92/1.080.90/0.900.98/0.840.88/0.750.92/0.934.71/6.016,625/3,435
Large8.68/13.804,211/2,096
P-value<0.001*0.005*<0.001*NA<0.001*<0.001*0.261<0.001*<0.001*

References

  1. Deodato F, Cilla S, Macchia G, Torre G, Caravatta L, Mariano G, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): interim results of a multi-arm phase I trial (DESTROY-2). Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26:748-756.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:1231-1239.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Ladbury C, Pennock M, Yilmaz T, Ankrah NK, Andraos T, Gogineni E, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases: a case-based radiosurgery society practice guideline. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023;9:101402.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Soffietti R, Rudà R, Trevisan E. Brain metastases: current management and new developments. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20:676-684.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Grishchuk D, Dimitriadis A, Sahgal A, De Salles A, Fariselli L, Kotecha R, et al. ISRS technical guidelines for Stereotactic Radiosurgery: treatment of small brain metastases (≤1 cm in diameter). Pract Radiat Oncol. 2023;13:183-194.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, Dinapoli R, Kline R, Loeffler J, et al. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:291-298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Lehrer EJ, Peterson JL, Zaorsky NG, Brown PD, Sahgal A, Chiang VL, et al. Single versus multifraction stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases: an international meta-analysis of 24 trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103:618-630.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Chang EL, Selek U, Hassenbusch SJ 3rd, Maor MH, Allen PK, Mahajan A, et al. Outcome variation among "radioresistant" brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:936-945.discussion 936-945.
  9. Schiff D, Messersmith H, Brastianos PK, Brown PD, Burri S, Dunn IF, et al. Radiation therapy for brain metastases: ASCO guideline endorsement of ASTRO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:2271-2276.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Kassam A, Phuong LK, Liscak R, et al. Development of a model to predict permanent symptomatic postradiosurgery injury for arteriovenous malformation patients. Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgery Study Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:1143-1148.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, Lamba MA, Warnick RE, Breneman JC. Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:996-1001.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Lee J, Kim HJ, Kim WC. CyberKnife-based stereotactic radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in older patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2023;41:258-266.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Fiagbedzi E, Hasford F, Tagoe SN. Impact of planning target volume margins in stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastasis: a review. Prog Med Phys. 2024;35:1-9.
    CrossRef
  14. Oshiro Y, Mizumoto M, Kato Y, Tsuchida Y, Tsuboi K, Sakae T, et al. Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2024;29:100235.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Chambrelant I, Jarnet D, Le Fèvre C, Kuntz L, Jacob J, Jenny C, et al. Comparative study of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for treating single brain metastases: a retrospective analysis of dosimetric and clinical outcomes. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024;30:100591.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. He Z, Ho MKJ, Lee WYV, Law HY, Wong YWV, Leung TW, et al. Frameless versus frame-based stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: a propensity-matched analysis. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2023;41:100642.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Wen N, Snyder KC, Scheib SG, Schmelzer P, Qin Y, Li H, et al. Technical note: evaluation of the systematic accuracy of a frameless, multiple image modality guided, linear accelerator based stereotactic radiosurgery system. Med Phys. 2016;43:2527.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Clarke E, Valeriani M, Osti M, Enrici RM. Frameless linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases: analysis of patient repositioning using a mask fixation system and clinical outcomes. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:158.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron JJ, Bey P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:333-342.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Stanley J, Breitman K, Dunscombe P, Spencer DP, Lau H. Evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery conformity indices for 170 target volumes in patients with brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12:245-253.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93 Suppl 3:219-222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Molinier J, Kerr C, Simeon S, Ailleres N, Charissoux M, Azria D, et al. Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:92-101.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  23. Torizuka D, Uto M, Takehana K, Mizowaki T. Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis. J Radiat Res. 2021;62:1114-1119.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Kuperman VY, Altundal Y, Kandel S, Kouskoulas TN. Dose conformity and falloff in single-lesion intracranial SRS with DCA and VMAT methods. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25:e14415.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Korean Society of Medical Physics

Vol.35 No.4
December 2024

pISSN 2508-4445
eISSN 2508-4453
Formerly ISSN 1226-5829

Frequency: Quarterly

Current Issue   |   Archives

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on :

  • line