Non-coplanar Arc-Involved Beam Arrangement With Sufficient Arc Rotations Is Suitable for Volumetric-Modulated Arc-Based Radiosurgery for Single Brain Metastasis.

ABSTRACT

Introduction In linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) leveraging a multileaf collimator (MLC) for brain metastasis (BM), volumetric-modulated arcs (VMAs) enable the generation of a suitable dose distribution with efficient planning and delivery. However, the arc arrangement, including the number of arcs, allocation, and rotation ranges, varies substantially among devices and facilities. Some modalities allow coplanar arc(s) (CA(s)) or beam(s) alone, and some facilities only use them intentionally despite the availability of non-coplanar arcs (NCAs). The study was conducted to examine the significance of NCAs and the optimal arc rotation ranges in VMA-based SRS for a single BM. Materials and methods This was a planning study for the clinical scenario of a single BM, including 20 clinical cases with a gross tumor volume (GTV) of 0.72-44.30 cc. Three different arc arrangements were compared 1) reciprocating double CA alone of each 360º rotation with different collimator angles of 0 and 90º, 2) one CA and two NCAs of each 120º rotation with the shortest beam path lengths to the irradiation isocenter (NCA_L), and 3) one CA of 360º rotation and two NCAs of each 180º rotation (NCA_F). The three arcs were allocated similarly to equally divide the cranial hemisphere with different collimator angles of 0, 45, and 90º. Three VMA-based SRS plans were generated for each GTV using a 5 mm leaf-width MLC with the identical optimization method that prioritized the steepness of dose gradient outside the GTV boundary without any constraints to the GTV internal dose. A prescribed dose was uniformly assigned to the GTV D V-0.01 cc, the minimum dose of GTV minus 0.01 cc. The GTV dose conformity, the steepness of dose gradients both outside and inside the GTV boundary, the degree of concentric lamellarity of the dose gradients, and the appropriateness of the dose attenuation margin outside the GTV boundary were evaluated using metrics appropriate for each. Results The arc arrangements including NCAs showed significantly steeper dose gradients both outside and inside the GTV boundary with smaller dose attenuation margins than the CAs alone, while NCAs showed no significant advantage on the GTV dose conformity. In the NCA-involved arc arrangements, the NCA_F was significantly superior to the NCA_L in terms of the GTV dose conformity, the steepness of dose gradient outside the GTV, the degree of concentric lamellarity of the dose gradients outside and inside the GTV boundary, and the appropriateness of dose attenuation margin. However, the NCA_F showed no significant advantage on the steepness of dose increase inside the GTV boundary over the NCA_L. The dose increase just inside the prescribed isodose surface to the GTV boundary was significantly steeper with the NCA_L than the NCA_F. Conclusions In VMA-based SRS for a single BM, an arc arrangement including NCAs is indispensable, and sufficient arc rotations are suitable for achieving a dose distribution that maximizes therapeutic efficacy and safety in comparison to limited ones which are appropriate for dynamic conformal arcs. Although VMA with CAs alone can provide a non-inferior GTV dose conformity to NCAs, CA(s) alone should be applied only to situations where shorter irradiation time is prioritized over efficacy and safety.