Whole-brain radiotherapy with hippocampus sparing and simultaneous integrated boost to metastases: A plan quality comparison study between Ethos, HyperArc, VMAT and Tomotherapy.

This study provides a concise and structured overview of a dosimetric comparison study conducted to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of 4 advanced radiotherapy techniques in treating brain metastases with hippocampus sparing and simultaneous integrated boost (HS-WBRT+SIB). Eleven patients with brain metastases previously treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Planning CT scans with 2 mm slice thickness and MR imaging were used for contouring and dose prescription. The bilateral hippocampus and other organs at risk (OARs) were automatically contoured, and hippocampal avoidance regions (HAR) were defined as a 7 mm 3D expansion around the hippocampus. Gross tumor volume for each metastasis (GTVmet) and planning target volume for metastases (PTVmet) were delineated. The whole-brain CTV (CTVWB) and planning target volume for whole brain (PTVWB) were defined accordingly. Treatment planning and optimization were conducted using state-of-the-art radiotherapy techniques: Ethos, HyperArc, VMAT, and Tomotherapy. Tomotherapy achieved the highest D98% for PTVmet, indicating the best metastasis coverage. HyperArc plans showed the highest D98% for PTVWB, suggesting superior whole-brain coverage. Tomotherapy demonstrated significantly lower D98%, D2%, and Dmean values for the hippocampus, indicating its superiority in sparing the hippocampus. VMAT resulted in the lowest D2% values for the eyes, optic nerves, brainstem, and hypophysis, showing the best sparing of these critical structures. Tomotherapy consistently achieved lower Dmean values for parotids, oral cavity, and lips compared to the other techniques. The dosimetric comparison revealed distinct strengths and weaknesses for each radiotherapy technique. Tomotherapy excelled in sparing the hippocampus, while VMAT showed promise in sparing OARs. HyperArc plans demonstrated the best overall whole-brain coverage. These findings should guide clinicians in selecting the most suitable technique based on patient characteristics and institutional resources.

Effects of metal implants and a metal artifact reduction tool on calculation accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB algorithms in small fields.

PURPOSE: In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) was investigated for small radiation fields incident on phantoms of various metals that include stainless steel grade 316L (SS316L) and titanium alloy grade 5 (Ti5) implants. In addition, the effects of using metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) were evaluated. METHODS: The evaluations of AAA and AXB were performed by comparing the crossline profiles calculated by AAA and AXB with GafChromicTM EBT3 film measurements at the phantom-implant interfaces and in close vicinity of implant materials for small field sizes (1 × 1 cm2 , 2 × 2 cm2 , 3 × 3 cm2 , and 4 × 4 cm2 ) of a 6 MV flattening filter free photon beam. O-MAR corrected and uncorrected (UC) computed tomography (CT) images were used for dose calculations. The values of average and standard deviations (SD) of Hounsfield unit (HU) for selected regions of each case were evaluated. The differences in average dose percentages in defined regions were calculated to quantify the relative dosimetric changes between doses calculated on UC and O-MAR corrected CT images. RESULTS: Compared to UC images, the values of SD were reduced, and the average HU became closer to its reference value in the O-MAR images. There was some discrepancy in average dose percentage differences between calculations using UC and O-MAR images at 1 cm above the SS316L implant (average dose percentage differences were AXB/UC = 5.9% and AXB/O-MAR = -1.2%; AAA/UC = 2.2%, and AAA/O-MAR = -0.8%). Neither AAA nor AXB algorithms predict increase in dose at upper phantom-implant interface (4.9%, 9.9%. 13.5%, and 13.8% for the fields from 1 × 1 cm2 to 4 × 4 cm2 , respectively). At the side of the SS316L implant (where dark streak artifacts exist), dose difference averages were estimated as - 1.1% and 22.3% when AXB/O-MAR and AXB/UC calculations are compared with EBT3 measurements, respectively. Dose predictions at 1 cm below the SS316L implant were underestimated by AXB/O-MAR (average -0.5%) and AXB/UC (average 2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The O-MAR tool was shown to have a favorable dosimetric effect or no effect on the calculations in the upper proximity of the implant materials. The dose differences between EBT3 film measurements and calculations at upper phantom-implant interfaces were smaller when they were calculated using O-MAR images. However, the dose differences increased when O-MAR corrected images were used for AAA calculations at lower phantom-implant interfaces. Use of O-MAR enabled closer agreement for the AXB algorithm, especially in the dark streak artifact regions. The O-MAR algorithm should be used when the dose is calculated with the AXB algorithm in cases of patients with the metal implants. The estimations using AAA and AXB algorithms, in phantom setups, with Ti5 implant material were found to be closer to the EBT3 film measurements, when compared with the same estimations using SS316L implant material.