Single fraction radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastasis: A dosimetric comparison of multiple delivery platforms.

There are numerous commercial radiotherapy systems capable of delivering single fraction spine radiosurgery/SBRT. We aim to compare the capabilities of several of these systems to deliver this treatment when following standardized criteria from a national protocol. Four distinct target lesions representing various case presentations of spine metastases were contoured in both the thoracic and lumbar spine of an anthropomorphic SBRT phantom. Single fraction radiosurgery/SBRT plans were designed for each target with each of our treatment platforms. Plans were prescribed to 16 Gy in one fraction to cover 90% of the target volume using normal tissue and target constraints from RTOG 0631. We analyzed these plans with priority on the dose to 10% of the partial spinal cord and dose to 0.03 cc of the spinal cord. Each system was able to maintain 90% target coverage while meeting all the constraints of RTOG 0631. On average, CyberKnife was able to achieve the lowest spinal cord doses overall and also generated the sharpest dose falloff as indicated by the Paddick gradient index. Treatment times varied widely depending on the modality utilized. On average, treatment can be delivered faster with Flattening Filter Free RapidArc and Tomotherapy, compared to Vero and Cyberknife. While all systems analyzed were able to meet the dose constraints of RTOG 0631, unique characteristics of individual treatment modalities may guide modality selection. Specifically, certain modalities performed better than the others for specific target shapes and locations, and delivery time varied significantly among the different modalities. These findings could provide guidance in determining which of the available modalities would be preferable for the treatment of spine metastases based on individualized treatment goals.

Range optimization for mono- and bi-energetic proton modulated arc therapy with pencil beam scanning.

The development of rotational proton therapy plans based on a pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) system has been limited, among several other factors, by the energy-switching time between layers, a system-dependent parameter that ranges between a fraction of a second and several seconds. We are investigating mono- and bi-energetic rotational proton modulated arc therapy (PMAT) solutions that would not be affected by long energy switching times. In this context, a systematic selection of the optimal proton energy for each arc is vital. We present a treatment planning comparison of four different range selection methods, analyzing the dosimetric outcomes of the resulting treatment plans created with the ranges obtained. Given the patient geometry and arc definition (gantry and couch trajectories, snout elevation) our in-house treatment planning system (TPS) FoCa was used to find the maximum, medial and minimum water-equivalent thicknesses (WETs) of the target viewed from all possible field orientations. Optimal ranges were subsequently determined using four methods: (1) by dividing the max/min WET interval into equal steps, (2) by taking the average target midpoints from each field, (3) by taking the average WET of all voxels from all field orientations, and (4) by minimizing the fraction of the target which cannot be reached from any of the available angles. After the range (for mono-energetic plans) or ranges (for bi-energetic plans) were selected, the commercial clinical TPS in use in our institution (Varian Eclipse™) was used to produce the PMAT plans using multifield optimization. Linear energy transfer (LET) distributions of all plans were also calculated using FoCa and compared among the different methods. Mono- and bi-energetic PMAT plans, composed of a single 180° arc, were created for two patient geometries: a C-shaped target located in the mediastinal area of a thoracic tissue-equivalent phantom and a small brain tumor located directly above the brainstem. All plans were optimized using the same procedure to (1) achieve target coverage, (2) reduce dose to OAR and (3) limit dose hot spots in the target. Final outcomes were compared in terms of the resulting dose and LET distributions. Data shows little significant differences among the four studied methods, with superior results obtained with mono-energetic plans. A streamlined systematic method has been implemented in an in-house TPS to find the optimal range to maximize target coverage with rotational mono- or bi-energetic PBS rotational plans by minimizing the fraction of the target that cannot be reached by any direction.

Technical Note: A treatment plan comparison between dynamic collimation and a fixed aperture during spot scanning proton therapy for brain treatment.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess the advantages of energy-layer specific dynamic collimation system (DCS) versus a per-field fixed aperture for spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT). METHODS: Five brain cancer patients previously planned and treated with SSPT were replanned using an in-house treatment planning system capable of modeling collimated and uncollimated proton beamlets. The uncollimated plans, which served as a baseline for comparison, reproduced the target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing of the clinically delivered plans. The collimator opening for the fixed aperture-based plans was determined from the combined cross sections of the target in the beam's eye view over all energy layers which included an additional margin equivalent to the maximum beamlet displacement for the respective energy of that energy layer. The DCS-based plans were created by selecting appropriate collimator positions for each row of beam spots during a Raster-style scanning pattern which were optimized to maximize the dose contributions to the target and limited the dose delivered to adjacent normal tissue. RESULTS: The reduction of mean dose to normal tissue adjacent to the target, as defined by a 10 mm ring surrounding the target, averaged 13.65% (range: 11.8%-16.9%) and 5.18% (2.9%-7.1%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively. The conformity index, as defined by the ratio of the volume of the 50% isodose line to the target volume, yielded an average improvement of 21.35% (19.4%-22.6%) and 8.38% (4.7%-12.0%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the DCS to provide collimation to each energy layer yielded better conformity in comparison to fixed aperture plans.