Single isocenter HyperArc treatment of multiple intracranial metastases: Targeting accuracy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: (A) To examine the alignment accuracy of CBCT guidance for brain metastases with off centered isocenters, (B) to test dose delivery and targeting accuracy for single isocenter treatments with multiple brain metastases. We report the results of the end-to-end test for Truebeam stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). MATERIALS/METHODS: An anthropomorphic CT head phantom was drilled with five MOSFET inserts and two PTW Pinpoint chamber inserts. The phantom was simulated, planned, and delivered. For the purpose of comparing the accuracy of alignment, CBCTs were acquired with the isocenter centered and offset superiorly 8 cm, inferiorly 8 cm, anteriorly 7 cm, posteriorly 7 cm, and right 5 cm. There were six degrees of freedom corrections applied to the plans, as well as intentional rotational and translational errors for dose comparisons. Dose accuracy checks were performed with MOSFET and PTW Pinpoint chamber, and targeting accuracy was assessed with GafChromic films. RESULT: (A) Compared to centered CBCT, off-centered CBCT scan showed some alignment errors, with a maximum difference of 0.6-degree pitch and 0.9 mm translation when the phantom was placed 8 cm inferior off center. (B) For the single isocenter plan, measured doses of the five MOSFET were 95%-100% of the planned dose, whereas the multiple isocenter plans were 96%-100%. With intentional setup errors of 1-degree pitch, doses were 97.1%-100.4% compared to the perfect setup. The same was found for the two pinpoint chamber readings with 1-degree rotation and 1 mm translation. (C) Targeting accuracy for targets at the isocenter is 0.67 mm, within the machine specification of 0.75 mm. Targeting accuracy for isocenters 6-12 cm away from the target is in the range 0.67-1.18 mm. CONCLUSION: (A) Single isocenter HyperArc treatments for multiple brain metastases are feasible and targeting accuracy is clinically acceptable. (B) The vertex in a cranial scan is very important for proper alignment.

Is it still necessary to perform measured based pre-treatment patient-specific QA for SRS HyperArc treatments?

PURPOSE: The Mobius3D system was validated as a modern secondary check dosimetry system. In particular, our objective has been to assess the suitability of the M3D as pre-treatment patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) tool for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) HyperArc (HA) treatments. We aimed to determine whether Mobius3D could safely replace the measurements-based patient-specific QA for this type of treatment. METHODS: 30 SRS HA treatment plans for brain were selected. The dose distributions, calculated by Mobius and our routinely used algorithm (AcurosXB v.15.6), were compared using gamma analysis index and DVH parameters based on the patient's CT dataset. All 30 plans were then delivered across the ionization chamber in a homogeneous phantom and the measured dose was compared with both M3D and TPS calculated one. The plans were delivered and verified in terms of PSQA using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) with Portal Dosimetry (PD) and myQA SRS (IBA Dosimetry) detector. Plans that achieved a global gamma passing rate (GPR) ≥ 97% based on 2%/2 mm criteria, with both Mobius3D and the conventional methods were evaluated acceptable. Finally, we assessed the capability of the M3D system to detect errors related to the position of the Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) in comparison to the analyzed measurement-based systems. RESULTS: No relevant differences were observed in the comparison between the dose calculated on the CT-dataset by M3D and the TPS. Observed discrepancies are imputable to different used algorithms, but no discrepancies related to goodness of plans have been found. Average differences between calculated (M3D and TPS) vs measured dose with ionization chamber were 2.5% (from 0.41% to 3.2%) and 1.81% (from 0.66% to 2.65%), for M3D and TPS, respectively. All plans passed with a gamma passing rate > 97% using conventional PSQA methods with a gamma criterion of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The average gamma passing rate for the M3D system was determined to be 99.4% (from 97.3% to 100%). Results from this study also demonstrated Mobius has better error detectability than conventional measurement-based systems. CONCLUSION: Our study shows Mobius3D could be a suitable alternative to conventional measured based QA methods for SRS HyperArc treatments.

What is the optimal isodose line for stereotactic radiotherapy for single brain metastases using HyperArc?

PURPOSE: The study aimed to investigate the optimal isodose line (IDL) in linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiotherapy for single brain metastasis, using HyperArc. We compared the dosimetric parameters for target and normal brain tissue among six plans with different IDLs. METHODS: This study included 30 patients with single brain metastasis. We retrospectively generated six plans for each tumor with different IDLs (80%, 70%, 60%, 50%, 40%, and 33%) using HyperArc. All treatment plans were normalized to the prescription dose of 35 Gy in five fractions which was covered by 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), defined by adding a 1.0 mm margin to the gross tumor volume (GTV). The dosimetric parameters were compared among the six plans. RESULTS: For GTV > 0.1 cm3, the ratio of brain-GTV volumes receiving 25 Gy to PTV (V25Gy/PTV) was significantly lower at IDL 40%-70% than at IDL 80% and 33% (p < 0.01, retrospectively). For GTV < 0.1 cm3, V25Gy/PTV decreased continuously as IDL decreased. The values of D99% and D80% for GTV increased with decreasing IDL. An IDL of 50% or less was required to achieve D99% of greater than 43 Gy and D80% of greater than 50 Gy. The mean values of D99% and D80% for IDL 50% were 44.3 and 51.9 Gy. CONCLUSION: The optimal IDL is 40%-50% for GTV > 0.1 cm3. These lower IDLs could increase D99% and D80% of GTV while lowering V25Gy of normal brain tissue, which may help reduce the risk of radiation necrosis and improve local control.

Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the dosimetric attributes of two multi-leaf collimator based techniques, HyperArc and Incise CyberKnife, in the treatment of brain metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 17 cases of brain metastases were selected including 6 patients of single lesion and 11 patients of multiple lesions. Treatment plans of HyperArc and CyberKnife were designed in Eclipse 15.5 and Precision 1.0, respectively, and transferred to Velocity 3.2 for comparison. RESULTS: HyperArc plans provided superior Conformity Index (0.91 ± 0.06 vs. 0.77 ± 0.07, p < 0.01) with reduced dose distribution in organs at risk (Dmax, p < 0.05) and lower normal tissue exposure (V4Gy-V20Gy, p < 0.05) in contrast to CyberKnife plans, although the Gradient Indexes were similar. CyberKnife plans showed higher Homogeneity Index (1.54 ± 0.17 vs. 1.39 ± 0.09, p < 0.05) and increased D2% and D50% in the target (p < 0.05). Additionally, HyperArc plans had significantly fewer Monitor Units (MUs) and beam-on time (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: HyperArc plans demonstrated superior performance compared with MLC-based CyberKnife plans in terms of conformity and the sparing of critical organs and normal tissues, although no significant difference in GI outcomes was noted. Conversely, CyberKnife plans achieved a higher target dose and HI. The study suggests that HyperArc is more efficient and particularly suitable for treating larger lesions in brain metastases.

Dosimetric effects of rotational errors for single isocenter multiple targets in HyperArc plans: A phantom and retrospective imaging analysis study.

PURPOSE: This study uses a phantom to investigate the dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors for Single Isocenter Multiple Targets (SIMT) HyperArc plans. Additionally, it evaluates intra-fractional rotational setup errors in patients treated with Encompass immobilization system. METHODS: The Varian HyperArc system (Varian Medical systems) was used to create plans targeting spherical PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm and with offsets of 1.3-5.3 cm from the isocenter. Dosimetric parameters, including mean and maximum dose, D99% and D95% were evaluated for various rotational setup errors ranging from 0.5° to 2° for the PTVs and certain CTVs created within PTVs. These rotational errors were applied in an order and direction that resulted in the maximum displacement of targets. The rotation was applied both uniformly around all three axes and individually around each axis. Furthermore, to link the findings to actual treatment scenarios, the intra-fractional rotational setup errors were obtained for stereotactic cranial patients treated with the Encompass system using CBCT images acquired during treatments. RESULTS: The maximum displacement of 2.7 mm was observed for targets located at 4.4 and 4.5 cm from the isocenter with rotational setup errors of 2°. The dose reduction for D99% values corresponding to this displacement were about 50%, 40%, and 30% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. Both D99% and D95% showed a consistent trend of dose reduction across various rotational errors and PTV volumes. While the maximum dose remained consistent for different targets with various rotational errors, the mean dose decreased by approximately 25%, 12%, and 6% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 cm, respectively, with rotational errors of 2°. In addition, by analyzing CBCT images, the absolute mean rotational setup errors obtained during treatment with Encompass for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.17° ± 0.13°, 0.11° ± 0.10°, and 0.12° ± 0.10° respectively. This data, combined with existing studies, suggest that a 0.5° rotational setup error is a safe choice to consider for calculating additional PTV margin to ensure adequate CTV coverage. Therefore, the assessment of maximum displacement and dosimetric parameters in this study, for a 0.5° rotational error, highlights the need for an additional 0.7 mm PTV margin for targets positioned at distances of 4.4 cm or greater from the isocenter. CONCLUSIONS: For SIMT Plans, a 0.5° rotational setup error is recommended as a basis for calculating additional PTV margins to ensure adequate CTV coverage when using the Encompass system.

Patient-specific QA for the HyperArc technique using gafchromic film with multiple calibration methods.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate different methods for calibrating EBT-XD films to develop a precise pre-treatment verification method for stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patients using the HyperArc (HA, Varian Medical System) technique. METHODS: Gafchromic EBT-XD films were calibrated using three different approaches: manual calibration, EDW calibration, and PDD calibration. Films were digitalized with an Epson V850 Pro scanner applying the local scanning protocol. Three clinical treatment plans were selected for evaluation. Patient-specific QA films were irradiated in the Mobius MVP phantom and the STEEV phantom. Scanned film images were converted into dose images using the calibration curves. Gamma analysis was performed to compare film dose and TPS calculated dose with various criteria. RESULTS: The scan-to-scan variation was evaluated to be ≤ 0.2%. The accuracy of the calibration curves was verified and the deviation from the converted dose deviates ≤ 3% from the known delivered dose. The gamma passing rate for all calibration methods was found to be over 94% with clinically relevant criteria. EDW calibration demonstrated higher average gamma passing rates compared to the manual method for single target plans, which is 99% ± 1.2% and 98.8% ± 1.5%, respectively. PDD method demonstrated improved agreement for multiple targets with the result of 99.3% ± 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The three calibration methods were validated, and they produced accurate calibration curves for EBT-XD films to enable pre-treatment patient-specific QA for stereotactic radiotherapy.

Dosimetric potential of knowledge-based planning model trained with HyperArc plans for brain metastases.

OBJECTIVE: Dosimetric potential of knowledge-based RapidPlan planning model trained with HyperArc plans (Model-HA) for brain metastases has not been reported. We developed a Model-HA and compared its performance with that of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. METHODS: From 67 clinical stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) HyperArc plans for brain metastases, 47 plans were used to build and train a Model-HA. The other 20 clinical HyperArc plans were recalculated in RapidPlan system with Model-HA. The model performance was validated with the 20 plans by comparing dosimetric parameters for normal brain tissue between clinical plans and model-generated plans. The 20 clinical conventional VMAT-based SRS or stereotactic radiotherapy plans (CL-VMAT) were reoptimized with Model-HA (RP) and HyperArc system (HA), respectively. The dosimetric parameters were compared among three plans (CL-VMAT vs. RP vs. HA) in terms of planning target volume (PTV), normal brain excluding PTVs (Brain - PTV), brainstem, chiasm, and both optic nerves. RESULTS: In model validation, the optimization performance of Model-HA was comparable to that of HyperArc system. In comparison to CL-VMAT, there were no significant differences among three plans with respect to PTV coverage (p > 0.17) and maximum dose for brainstem, chiasm, and optic nerves (p > 0.40). RP provided significantly lower V20 Gy , V12 Gy , and V4 Gy for Brain - PTV than CL-VMAT (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The Model-HA has the potential to significantly reduce the normal brain dose of the original VMAT plans for brain metastases.

HyperArc VMAT stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent previously-irradiated head and neck cancers: Plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and efficiency.

PURPOSE: This paper demonstrates the clinical feasibility and efficacy of HyperArc VMAT treatments for locally recurrent, locally advanced, or previously irradiated head and neck cancers treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: First, an anthropomorphic SRS head phantom from the MD Anderson's IROC credentialing laboratory containing a 1.9 cm diameter spherical target, including in vivo dosimetry system, was imaged, planned, and irradiated (25 Gy in 1 fraction) using HyperArc VMAT with a 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam. Second, RANDO phantom was imaged, planned, and irradiated (35 Gy in 5 fractions) by generating eight HyperArc VMAT plans (4 right, 4 left neck tumors) at different anatomical locations (C1-C4). Average tumor volume was 21.7 cm3 up to 32.3 cm3 . Distance to isocenter from the central marker of the Encompass device down to neck was 25.8 cm up to 28.0 cm and 24.3 cm up to 27.1 cm for left- and right-sided neck tumors, respectively, and 9 cm from both lateral markers defined by the patient protection zone. Third, seven recurrent head and neck cancer patients with 80.3 cm3 tumors on average, and up to 159 cm3 , were imaged, planned, and treated with 30-40 Gy in 5 fractions with HyperArc SRT. Plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and efficiency are reported herein. RESULTS: Phantom irradiation results met all the compliance requirements set forth by the IROC for HyperArc SRS treatment. For end-to-end RANDO phantom tests, a highly conformal target dose distribution with 50% isodose fall-off within 5 mm from the surface of the target was obtained. Average beam modulation factor, beam-on-time, and overall treatment time were 2.9, 2.56 min, and 13.96 min with 99.1% pre-treatment quality assurance pass rate for the 2%/2 mm gamma criteria, respectively. Immediately adjacent critical structures, such as the spinal cord (maximum, 3.9 Gy and 0.35 cm3 of cord, 3.7 Gy) and skin (maximum, 10.3 Gy and 10 cm3 of skin, 5.7 Gy), were spared. Similar results were found on the patient's HyperArc VMAT plans including highly conformal target coverage, sharp dose fall-off, and low doses to the adjacent critical organs such as the spinal cord (< 5 Gy). Average perfect pitch couch correction was <1.5 mm and 2° in each direction. Average beam-on-time was approximately 3.21 min and treatments were completed within 15 min. CONCLUSION: For recurrent head and neck SRT treatments, HyperArc VMAT provided highly conformal dose distributions, rapid dose fall-off, excellent sparing of adjacent critical organs, and highly accurate treatments that could be delivered down to the C4 vertebral level. This could potentially allow for delivery of HyperArc SRT to patients with glomus tumors as well to those who may not tolerate frame-based SRS treatment. Clinical follow up of these patients is ongoing to confirm the therapeutic benefits of this novel treatment option.

Intra-fractional patient motion when using the Qfix Encompass immobilization system during HyperArc treatment of patients with brain metastases.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the intra-fractional motion (IM) of patients immobilized using the QFix Encompass Immobilization System during HyperArc (HA) treatment. METHOD: HA treatment was performed on 89 patients immobilized using the Encompass. The IM during treatment (including megavoltage (MV) registration) was analyzed for six degrees of freedom including three axes of translation (anterior-posterior, superior-inferior (SI) and left-right (LR)) and three axes of rotation (pitch, roll, and yaw). Then, the no corrected IM (IMNC ) was retrospectively simulated (excluding MV registration) in three directions (SI, LR, and yaw). Finally, the correlation between the treatment time and the IM of the 3D vector was assessed. RESULTS: The average IM in terms of the absolute displacement were 0.3 mm (SI), 0.3 mm (LR) and 0.2° (yaw) for Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and 0.3 mm (SI), 0.2 mm (LR), and 0.2° (yaw) for stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). The absolute maximum values of IM were <1 mm along the SI and LR axes and <1° along the yaw axis. The absolute maximum displacements for IMNC were >1 mm along the SI and LR axes and >1° along the yaw axis. In the correlation between the treatment time and the IM, the r-values were -0.025 and 0.027 for SRS and SRT respectively, along the axes of translation. For the axes of rotation, the r-values were 0.012 and 0.206 for SRS and SRT, respectively. CONCLUSION: Encompass provided patient immobilization with adequate accuracy during HA treatment. The absolute maximum displacement IM was less than IMNC along the translational/rotational axes, and no statistically significant relationship between the treatment time and the IM was observed.

Proton vs Hyperarc™ radiosurgery: A planning comparison.

For many patients, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) offers a minimally invasive, curative option when surgical techniques are not possible. To date, the literature supporting the efficacy and safety of SRS treatment techniques uses photon beams. However, with the number of proton therapy facilities exponentially growing and the favorable physical properties of proton beam radiation therapy, there is an opportunity to develop proton therapy techniques for SRS. The goal of this paper is to determine the ability of clinical proton treatment planning systems to model small field dosimetry accurately and to compare various planning metrics used to evaluate photon SRS to determine the optimum beam configurations and settings for proton SRS (PSRS) treatment plans. Once established, these plan settings were used to perform a planning comparison on a variety of different SRS cases and compare SRS metrics between the PSRS plans and HyperArc™ (VMAT) SRS plans.

Dosimetric effect of rotational setup errors in stereotactic radiosurgery with HyperArc for single and multiple brain metastases.

PURPOSE: In stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with single-isocentric treatments for brain metastases, rotational setup errors may cause considerable dosimetric effects. We assessed the dosimetric effects on HyperArc plans for single and multiple metastases. METHODS: For 29 patients (1-8 brain metastases), HyperArc plans with a prescription dose of 20-24 Gy for a dose that covers 95% (D95% ) of the planning target volume (PTV) were retrospectively generated (Ref-plan). Subsequently, the computed tomography (CT) used for the Ref-plan and cone-beam CT acquired during treatments (Rot-CT) were registered. The HyperArc plans involving rotational setup errors (Rot-plan) were generated by re-calculating doses based on the Rot-CT. The dosimetric parameters between the two plans were compared. RESULTS: The dosimetric parameters [D99% , D95% , D1% , homogeneity index, and conformity index (CI)] for the single-metastasis cases were comparable (P > 0.05), whereas the D95% for each PTV of the Rot-plan decreased 10.8% on average, and the CI of the Rot-plan was also significantly lower than that of the Ref-plan (Ref-plan vs Rot-plan, 0.93 ± 0.02 vs 0.75 ± 0.14, P < 0.01) for the multiple-metastases cases. In addition, for the multiple-metastases cases, the Rot-plan resulted in significantly higher V10Gy (P = 0.01), V12Gy (P = 0.02), V14Gy (P = 0.02), and V16Gy (P < 0.01) than those in the Ref-plan. CONCLUSION: The rotational setup errors for multiple brain metastases cases caused non-negligible underdosage for PTV and significant increases of V10Gy to V16Gy in SRS with HyperArc.

Stereotactic Optimized Automated Radiotherapy (SOAR): a novel automated planning solution for multi-metastatic SRS compared to HyperArc™.

Objective.Automated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) planning solutions improve clinical efficiency and reduce treatment plan variability. Available commercial solutions employ a template-based strategy that may not be optimal for all SRS patients. This study compares a novel beam angle optimized Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning solution for multi-metastatic SRS to the commercial solution HyperArc.Approach.Stereotactic Optimized Automated Radiotherapy (SOAR) performs automated plan creation by combining collision prediction, beam angle optimization, and dose optimization to produce individualized high-quality SRS plans using Eclipse Scripting. In this retrospective study 50 patients were planned using SOAR and HyperArc. Assessed dose metrics included the Conformity Index (CI), Gradient Index (GI), and doses to organs-at-risk. Complexity metrics evaluated the modulation, gantry speed, and dose rate complexity. Plan dosimetric quality, and complexity were compared using double-sided Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α= 0.05) adjusted for multiple comparisons.Main Results.The median target CI was 0.82 with SOAR and 0.79 with HyperArc (p < .001). Median GI was 1.85 for SOAR and 1.68 for HyperArc (p < .001). The median V12Gy normal brain volume for SOAR and HyperArc were 7.76 cm3and 7.47 cm3respectively. Median doses to the eyes, lens, optic nerves, and optic chiasm were statistically significant favoring SOAR. The SOAR algorithm scored lower for all complexity metrics assessed.Significance.In-house developed automated planning solutions are a viable alternative to commercial solutions. SOAR designs high-quality patient-specific SRS plans with a greater degree of versatility than template-based methods.

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.

Repeated HyperArc radiosurgery for recurrent intracranial metastases and dosimetric analysis of recurrence pattern to account for diffuse dose effect on microscopical disease.

Aims: Evaluate effectiveness and safety of multiple HyperArc courses and patterns of progression in patients affected by BMs with intracranial progression. Methods: 56 patients were treated for 702 BMs with 197 (range 2-8) HyperArc courses in case of exclusive intracranial progression. Primary end-point was the overall survival (OS), secondary end-points were intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), toxicity, local control (LC), neurological death (ND), and whole-brain RT (WBRT)-free survival. Site of progression was evaluated against isodoses levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, and 24 Gy.). Results: The 1-year OS was 70 %, and the median was 20.8 months (17-36). At the univariate analysis (UVA) biological equivalent dose (BED) > 51.3 Gy and non-melanoma histology significantly correlated with OS. The median time to iPFS was 4.9 months, and the 1-year iPFS was 15 %. Globally, 538 new BMs occurred after the first HA cycle in patients with extracranial disease controlled. 96.4 % of them occurred within the isodoses range 0-7 Gy as follows: 26.6 % (0 Gy), 16.5 % (1 Gy), 16.5 % (2 Gy), 20.1 % (3 Gy), 13.1 % (5 Gy), 3.4 % (7 Gy) (p = 0.00). Radionecrosis occurred in 2 metastases (0.28 %). No clinical toxicity of grade 3 or higher occurred during follow-up. One- and 2-year LC was 90 % and 79 %, respectively. At the UVA BED > 70 Gy and non-melanoma histology were significant predictors of higher LC. The 2-year WBRT-free survival was 70 %. After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, 12 patients deceased by ND. Conclusion: Intracranical relapses can be safely and effectively treated with repeated HyperArc, with the aim to postpone or avoid WBRT. Diffuse dose by volumetric RT might reduce microscopic disease also at relatively low levels, potentially acting as a virtual CTV. Neurological death is not the most common cause of death in this population, which highlights the impact of extracranial disease on overall survival.

Dosimetric evaluation of LINAC-based single-isocenter multi-target multi-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery with more than 20 targets: comparing MME, HyperArc, and RapidArc.

BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric quality of three widely used techniques for LINAC-based single-isocenter multi-target multi-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) with more than 20 targets: dynamic conformal arc (DCA) in BrainLAB Multiple Metastases Elements (MME) module and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using RapidArc (RA) and HyperArc (HA) in Varian Eclipse. METHODS: Ten patients who received single-isocenter fSRS with 20-37 targets were retrospectively replanned using MME, RA, and HA. Various dosimetric parameters, such as conformity index (CI), Paddick CI, gradient index (GI), normal brain dose exposures, maximum organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and beam-on times were extracted and compared among the three techniques. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: All plans achieved the prescribed dose coverage goal of at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). HA plans showed superior conformity compared to RA and MME plans. MME plans showed superior GI compared to RA and HA plans. RA plans resulted in significantly higher low and intermediate dose exposure to normal brain compared to HA and MME plans, especially for lower doses of ≥ 8Gy and ≥ 5Gy. No significant differences were observed in the maximum dose to OARs among the three techniques. The beam-on time of MME plans was about two times longer than RA and HA plans. CONCLUSIONS: HA plans achieved the best conformity, while MME plans achieved the best dose fall-off for LINAC-based single-isocenter multi-target multi-fraction SRS with more than 20 targets. The choice of the optimal technique should consider the trade-offs between dosimetric quality, beam-on time, and planning effort.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Machine Performance Checks as an Alternative to Winston-Lutz Quality Assurance Testing in the TrueBeam Linear Accelerator with HyperArc.

HyperArc is a preferred technique for treating brain metastases, employing a single isocenter for multiple lesions. Geometrical isocentricity in the TrueBeam linear accelerator with HyperArc is crucial. We evaluated machine performance checks (MPCs) as an alternative to the Winston-Lutz (WL) test to verify the treatment isocenter. Between January and July 2023, we assessed 53 data points using MPC and Winston-Lutz tests. The isocenter size obtained from the MPC and its sum, including the rotation-induced couch shift, were compared with the maximum total delta value from the Winston-Lutz test. The maximum total delta was 0.68 ± 0.10 mm, while the isocenter size was 0.28 ± 0.02 mm. The sum of the isocenter size and rotation-induced couch shift measured by MPC was 0.61 ± 0.03 mm. During the Winston-Lutz test (without couch rotation), the maximum total delta value was 0.56 ± 0.13 mm. A t-test analysis revealed a significant difference in the isocenter size averages between the Winston-Lutz and MPC outcomes, whereas the Pearson's correlation coefficient yielded no correlation. Our study highlights the necessity for separate MPC and Winston-Lutz tests for isocenter verification. Therefore, the Winston-Lutz test should precede stereotactic radiosurgery for isocenter verification.

Dose-Painting Linear Accelerator Radiosurgery of Glomus Jugulare With Dosimetric Comparison to Gamma Knife.

Objectives In this study, we outline our rationale for delivering a dose of ≥15 Gy in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of glomus jugulare tumor (GJT) while ensuring the avoidance of complications associated with doses >13 Gy to the facial nerve. To avoid such complications, we initially utilized the Gamma Knife Perfexion (GK) system (Elekta Instrument AB, Stockholm, Sweden) at our institution but encountered challenges related to lengthy treatment times and difficulty in sculpting doses to minimize doses to spare the facial nerve. As a potential solution, we propose the use of HyperArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), a newly developed automated delivery platform for linear accelerator (LINAC)-based SRS. HyperArc offers the potential for faster treatment and more complex shaping of the radiotherapy dose with multiple arcs and multi-leaf collimators. Methods We retrospectively reviewed nine cases of patients with GJT treated with HyperArc. Patients' demographic and treatment data were collected. Additionally, simulated GK treatment plans were created and compared with HyperArc plans to assess time savings, PTV coverage, and plan quality. Results One male and eight female patients, with a mean age of 63.9 years, were included. Treatments were delivered on average in 29 minutes, achieving 95-100% of the tumor while limiting the facial nerve to <13 Gy. Treatments replanned using our GK system could achieve only 92-99% tumor coverage while respecting facial nerve constraints, with average treatment times of 180 minutes. Comparable plan quality parameters were attained with both modalities. Conclusions The HyperArc system provides a qualitatively satisfactory and rapid treatment delivery of a highly sculpted radiotherapy dose to maximize tumor coverage and minimize facial nerve complications.

Technical note: Patient-specific quality assurance for multi-target single-isocenter SRS-A target-specific approach.

BACKGROUND: As radiotherapy techniques advance, so do planning methods for multi-target intracranial SRS cases. Multi-target-single-isocenter (MTSI) planning offers high-precision beam delivery with shortened duration. However, accommodating all targets in a single Patient-Specific-Quality-Assurance (PSQA) with QA devices like SRS MapCHECK (SRS MC) is generally impractical. PURPOSE: Consequently, we conducted PSQA, using a custom script, by relocating each Target or Neighboring-Target-Group (T-NTG) relative to the beam isocenter on the PSQA device, ensuring each target's dose coverage at high precision. METHODS: SRS treatment plans use 6MV-FFF beams, consisting of four Volumetric Modulated ARC Therapy (VMAT) arcs, including one full-arc and three half arcs with couch-kicks. A custom script calculated T-NTG coordinates relative to the beam isocenter. QA verification plans were created for each T-NTG, redefining the beam isocenter for precise alignment with the center of the SRS MC. CBCT images were acquired during PSQA for SRS MC alignment, and gamma-index analysis (GIA) was performed. A single-tail paired t-test assessed the passing rate (PR) for 75 QA verification plans. RESULTS: GIA with l.0 mm/2.0% criteria for each QA plan yielded a PR > 95.5%, with an average of 98.9%. Plans achieving PR > 99.0% and > 97.0% constituted 63% and 92% of studied plans, respectively. Statistical significance was observed in a t-test with an ideal PR value of 100%, while insignificance was found with a PR value of 99%, suggesting that PSQA for individual targets consistently approaches 99% PR. In MTSI cases using 6MV-FFF beams, targets within the lateral dose-fall-off region require careful verification for acceptability. Our clinical study on individual T-NTG relocation demonstrates that the presented PSQA methods are generally acceptable, supported by a statistically insignificant PR against a 99% PR value. CONCLUSIONS: Presented statistical analysis results indicate that the proposed PSQA approach can serve as a reliable tool in clinical settings.

Dose reduction of hippocampus using HyperArc planning in postoperative radiotherapy for primary brain tumors.

To compare dosimetric parameters for the hippocampus, organs at risk (OARs), and targets of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), and HyperArc (HA) plans in patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy for primary brain tumors. For 20 patients, HA plans were generated to deliver 40.05 to 60 Gy for the planning target volume (PTV). In addition, doses for the hippocampus and OARs were minimized. The VMAT and NC-VMAT plans were retrospectively generated using the same optimization parameters as those in the HA plans. For the hippocampus, the equivalent dose to be administered in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) was calculated assuming α/ß = 2. Dosimetric parameters for the PTV, hippocampus, and OARs in the VMAT, NC-VMAT, and HA plans were compared. For PTV, the HA plans provided significantly lower Dmax and D1% than the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans (p < 0.05), whereas the D99% and Dmin were significantly higher (p < 0.05). For the contralateral hippocampus, the dosimetric parameters in the HA plans (8.1 ± 9.6, 6.5 ± 7.2, 5.6 ± 5.8, and 4.8 ± 4.7 Gy for D20%, D40%, D60% and D80%, respectively) were significantly smaller (p < 0.05) than those in the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. Except for the optic chiasm, the Dmax in the HA plans (brainstem, lens, optic nerves, and retinas) was the smallest (p < 0.05). In addition, the doses in the HA plans for the brain and skin were the smallest (p < 0.05) among the 3 plans. HA planning, instead of coplanar and noncoplanar VMAT, significantly reduces the dosage to which the contralateral hippocampus as well as other OARs are exposed without compromising on target coverage.

Dosimetric quality of HyperArc in boost radiotherapy for single glioblastoma: comparison with CyberKnife and manual VMAT.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy are feasible treatment options for single glioblastoma multiforme when combined with conventional radiotherapy or delivered alone. HyperArc (HA), a novel linac-based method with 4 noncoplanar arcs, has been introduced into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for single and multiple metastases. In this study, we compared the dosimetric quality of HyperArc with the well-established CyberKnife (CK) and conventional VMAT methods of SRT for a single, large target. METHODS: Sixteen patients treated in our center with their clinical CK plans were enrolled, and the linac-based plans were designed in silico. From the aspect of normal tissue protection and treatment efficacy, we compared the conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), dose distribution in planning target volume, dose in the normal brain tissue, and mean dose of several organs at risk (OARs). All of the data were evaluated with nonparametric Kruskal‒Wallis tests. We further investigated the relationship of the dose distribution with the tumor volume and its location. RESULTS: The results showed that with a higher CI (0.94 ± 0.03) and lower GI (2.57 ± 0.53), the HA plans generated a lower dose to the OARs and the normal tissue. Meanwhile, the CK plans achieved a higher HI (0.35 ± 0.10) and generated a higher dose inside the tumor. Although manual VMAT showed slight improvement in dose quality and less monitoring units (2083 ± 225), HA can save half of the delivery time of CK (37 minutes) on average. CONCLUSION: HA plans have higher conformity and spare OARs with lower normal tissue irradiation, while CK plans achieve a higher mean dose in tumors. HA with 4 arcs is sufficient in dosimetric quality for a single tumor with great convenience in planning and treatment processes compared with conventional VMAT. The tumor size and location are factors to be considered when selecting treatment equipment.