Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of systematic MLC leaf positional uncertainties (stemming from mechanical inaccuracies or sub-optimal MLC modeling) on the quality of intracranial single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans. An estimation of appropriate tolerance levels is attempted. METHODS: Five patients, with three to four metastases and at least one target lying in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs) were included in this study. A single-isocenter multi-arc VMAT plan per patient was prepared, which served as the reference for dosimetric impact evaluation. A range of leaf offsets was introduced (±0.03 mm up to ±0.30 mm defined at the MLC plane) to both leaf banks, by varying the leaf offset MLC modeling parameter in Monaco for all the prepared plans, in order to simulate projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm up to ±0.94 mm at the isocenter plane, respectively. For all offsets simulated and cases studied, dose distributions were re-calculated and compared with the corresponding reference ones. An experimental dosimetric procedure using the SRS mapCHECK diode array was also performed to support the simulation study results and investigate its suitability to detect small systematic leaf positional errors. RESULTS: Projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm were well-tolerated with respect to both target dosimetry and OAR-sparing. A linear relationship was found between D95% percentage change and projected leaf offset (slope: 12%/mm). Impact of projected offset on target dosimetry was strongly associated with target volume. In two cases, plans that could be considered potentially clinically unacceptable (i.e., clinical dose constraint violation) were obtained even for projected offsets as small as 0.19 mm. The performed experimental dosimetry check can detect potential small systematic leaf errors. CONCLUSIONS: Plan quality indices and dose-volume metrics are very sensitive to systematic sub-millimeter leaf positional inaccuracies, projected at the isocenter plane. Acceptable and tolerance levels in systematic MLC uncertainties need to be tailored to VMAT-SRS spatial and dosimetric accuracy requirements.

Dosimetric impact of rotational errors on the quality of VMAT-SRS for multiple brain metastases: Comparison between single- and two-isocenter treatment planning techniques.

PURPOSE: In the absence of a 6D couch and/or assuming considerable intrafractional patient motion, rotational errors could affect target coverage and OAR-sparing especially in multiple metastases VMAT-SRS cranial cases, which often involve the concurrent irradiation of off-axis targets. This work aims to study the dosimetric impact of rotational errors in such applications, under a comparative perspective between the single- and two-isocenter treatment techniques. METHODS: Ten patients (36 metastases) were included in this study. Challenging cases were only considered, with several targets lying in close proximity to OARs. Two multiarc VMAT plans per patient were prepared, involving one and two isocenters, serving as the reference plans. Different degrees of angular offsets at various orientations were introduced, simulating rotational errors. Resulting dose distributions were evaluated and compared using commonly employed dose-volume and plan quality indices. RESULTS: For single-isocenter plans and 1° rotations, plan quality indices, such as coverage, conformity index and D95% , deteriorated significantly (>5%) for distant targets from the isocenter (at> 4-6 cm). Contrarily, for two-isocenter plans, target distances to nearest isocenter were always shorter (≤4 cm), and, consequently, 1° errors were well-tolerated. In the most extreme case considered (2° around all axes) conformity index deteriorated by on-average 7.2%/cm of distance to isocenter, if one isocenter is used, and 2.6%/cm, for plans involving two isocenters. The effect is, however, strongly associated with target volume. Regarding OARs, for single-isocenter plans, significant increase (up to 63%) in Dmax and D0.02cc values was observed for any angle of rotation. Plans that could be considered clinically unacceptable were obtained even for the smallest angle considered, although rarer for the two-isocenter planning approach. CONCLUSION: Limiting the lesion-to-isocenter distance to ≤4 cm by introducing additional isocenter(s) appears to partly mitigate severe target underdosage, especially for smaller target sizes. If OAR-sparing is also a concern, more stringent rotational error tolerances apply.