Search

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 (GTV met ) and planning target volume for metastases (PTV met ) were delineated. The whole-brain CTV (CTV WB ) and planning target volume for whole brain (PTV WB ) 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 PTV met , indicating the best metastasis coverage. HyperArc plans showed the highest D98% for PTV WB , suggesting superior whole-brain coverage. Tomotherapy demonstrated significantly lower D98%, D2%, and D mean 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 D mean 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., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The HyperArc technique is known for generating high-quality radiosurgical treatment plans for intracranial lesions or hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). However, there is no reported feasibility of using the HyperArc technique in hippocampal-sparing WBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). This study aimed to compare dosimetric parameters of 2 commercially-available volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy techniques, HyperArc and RapidArc, when using hippocampal-sparing WBRT with a SIB to treat brain metastases. Treatment plans using HyperArc and RapidArc techniques were generated retrospectively for 19 previously treated patients (1 to 3 brain metastases). The planning target volumes for the whole brain (excluding the hippocampal avoidance region; PTV WB ) and metastases (PTV met ) were prescribed 25 and 45 Gy, respectively, in 10 fractions. Each plan included homogeneous and inhomogeneous delivery to the PTV met . Dosimetric parameters for the target (conformity index [CI], homogeneity index [HI], target coverage [D 95% ]), and nontarget organs at risk were compared for the HyperArc and RapidArc plans. For homogeneous delivery, dosimetric parameters, including mean CI, HI, and target coverage in PTV WB and PTV met , were superior for HyperArc than RapidArc plans (all p < 0.01). The PTV WB and PTV met target coverage for HyperArc plans was significantly greater than for RapidArc plans (96.17% vs 93.38%, p < 0.01; 94.02% vs 92.21%, p < 0.01, respectively). HyperArc plans had significantly lower mean hippocampal D max and D min values than RapidArc plans (D max : 15.53 Gy vs, 16.71 Gy, p < 0.01; D min : 8.33 Gy vs 8.93 Gy, p < 0.01, respectively). Similarly, inhomogeneous delivery of hyperArc produced a superior target and lower hippocampal dosimetric parameters than RapidArc, except for the HI of PTV met (all p < 0.01). HyperArc generated superior conformity and target coverage with lower hippocampal doses than RapidArc. HyperArc could be an attractive technique for hippocampal-sparing WBRT with an SIB., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To determine the feasibility and utility of conebeam CT-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent, previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients on the Halcyon, a ring delivery system (RDS). This research aims to quantify plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and overall efficacy by comparing against novel clinical TrueBeam HyperArc method. Ten recurrent HNC patients who were treated at our institution on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) for 30 to 40 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions with noncoplanar HyperArc plans were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF). These plans were re-planned with the same Acuros-based dose engine. Additionally, we used site-specific full/partial coplanar VMAT arcs. PTV coverage, mean dose to GTV, maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OAR), beam-on time (BOT), and quality assurance (QA) results were investigated and compared. Halcyon provided highly conformal HNC SRT plans with slightly superior mean PTVD99 coverage (96.7% vs 95.5%, p = 0.071), and slightly lower mean GTV dose (37.8 Gy vs 38.2 Gy, p = 0.241) when compared to the HyperArc plans. Differences in plan conformality and maximum dose to OARs were statistically insignificant. Due to Halcyon's coplanar geometry, D2cm was significantly higher (p = 0.001) but Halcyon did result in a reduced normal brain dose by 1 Gy on average and up to 5.2 Gy in some cases. Halcyon provided similar patient-specific QA pass rates with a 2%/2mm gamma criteria (98.2% vs 98.5%) and independent in-house Monte Carlo second check results (97.7% vs 98.2%), suggesting identical treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon plans resulted in slightly longer beam-on time (3.16 vs 2.30 minutes, p = 0.010), however door-to-door patient time is expected to be <10 minutes. Compared to clinical TrueBeam HyperArc, Halcyon SRT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy with a potentially faster overall treatment using fully automated patient setup and verification. Rapid delivery of recurrent HNC SRT may reduce intrafraction motion errors while also improving patient compliance and comfort. To provide high-quality of HNC SRT similar to HyperArc, we recommend Halcyon users consider commissioning this novel method. This method will be useful for remote and underserved patient cohorts including Halcyon-only clinics as well., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to compare dosimetric parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and automated VMAT (HyperArc, HA) plans in stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with cervical metastatic spine tumors. VMAT plans were generated for 11 metastases using the simultaneous integrated boost technique to deliver 35 to 40 and 20 to 25 Gy for high dose and elective dose planning target volume (PTVHD and PTVED), respectively. The HA plans were retrospectively generated using 1 coplanar and 2 noncoplanar arcs. Subsequently, the doses to the targets and OARs were compared. The HA plans provided significantly higher (p < 0.05) D min (77.4 ± 13.1%), D 99% (89.3 ± 8.9%), and D 98% (92.5 ± 7.7%) for gross tumor volume (GTV) than those of the VMAT plans (73.4 ± 12.2%, 84.2 ± 9.6 and 87.3 ± 8.8% for D min , D 99% and D 98% , respectively). In addition, D 99% and D 98% for PTVHD were significantly higher in the HA plans, whereas dosimetric parameters were comparable between the HA and VMAT plans for PTVED. The D max values for the brachial plexus, esophagus, and spinal cord were comparable, and no significant difference was observed in the D mean for the larynx, pharyngeal constrictor, thyroid, parotid grand (left and right), and Submandibular gland (left and right). The HA plans provided significantly higher target coverage of GTV and PTVHD, with a comparable dose for OARs with VMAT plans. The results of this study may contribute to the improvement of local control in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 (EQD 2 ) was calculated assuming α/β = 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 D max and D 1% than the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans (p < 0.05), whereas the D 99% and D min 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 D 20% , D 40% , D 60% and D 80% , respectively) were significantly smaller (p < 0.05) than those in the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. Except for the optic chiasm, the D max 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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this study., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We modeled the Qfix Encompass™ immobilization system and further verified the calculated dose distribution of the AcurosXB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm using SRS MapCHECK Ⓡ (SRSMC) in the HyperArc™ (HA) clinical plan. An Encompass system with a StereoPHAN™ QA phantom was scanned by SOMATOM go.Sim and imported to an Eclipse™ treatment planning system to create a treatment plan for Encompass modeling. The Encompass modeling was performed in the StereoPHAN with a pinpoint ion chamber for 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter free (6 MV FFF), and 2 × 2 cm 2 , 4 × 4 cm 2 , and 6 × 6 cm 2 irradiation field sizes. The dose calculation algorithm used was AXB ver. 15.5 with a 1.0 mm calculation grid size. The Hounsfield unit (HU) values of the Encompass modeling were set to 400, -100, -200, and -300 for Encompass, and -400, -600, -700, and -800 for the Encompass base. We evaluated the dose distribution after Encompass modeling by SRSMC using gamma analysis in 12 patients. We adopted HU values of -200 for Encompass, -800 for Encompass base for 6 MV, and -200 for Encompass and -700 for Encompass. Base for 6 MV FFF was adopted as the HU values for the Encompass modeling based on the measurement results. The proposed Encompass modeling resulted in a mean pass rate evaluation >98% for both 6 MV and 6 MV FFF when the 1%/1 mm criterion was used, demonstrating that the proposed HU value can be adopted to calculate more accurate dose distributions., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The goal of this study is to fully automate the treatment planning and delivery process of hippocampal-sparing whole brain irradiation (HS-WBRT) by combining a RapidPlan (RP) knowledge-based planning model and HyperArc (HA) technology. Additionally, this study compares the dosimetric performance of RapidPlan-HyperArc (RP-HA) treatment plans with RP plans and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Ten patients previously treated with HS-WBRT using conventional VMAT were re-planned using RP-HA technique and RP model for HS-WBRT. Treatment plans were generated for 30Gy in 3Gy fractions using 6MV photon beam on a TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) equipped with high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC). Target coverage, homogeneity index (HI), Paddick Conformity index (CI), dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) provided by the 3 planning modalities were compared, and a paired t-test was performed. Total number of monitor units (MU), effective planning time and beam-on-time time were reported and evaluated for each plan. RP-HA plans achieved on average a 4% increase in D 98% of PTV, a 26% improvement in HI, a 2.3% increase in CI, when compared to RP plans. Furthermore, RP-HA plans provided on average 11% decrease in D 100% of hippocampi when compared to VMAT plans. All RP-HA plans were generated in less than 30 minutes while RP plans took 40 minutes and VMAT plans required on average 9 hours to complete. Regarding beam-on-time time, it was estimated that RP-HA plans take on average 5 minutes to deliver while RP and VMAT plans require 6.5 and 10 minutes, respectively. RP-HA method provides fully automated planning and delivery for HS-WBRT. The auto-generated plans together with automated treatment delivery allow standardization of plan quality, increased efficiency and ultimately improved patient care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest needs to be reported, (Copyright © 2021 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this work was to evaluate using Varian HyperArc as a planning and treatment solution for whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampal sparing following Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0933 dosimetric criteria. Ten patients previously treated for intracranial lesions were retrospectively planned for WBRT with hippocampal sparing using HyperArc and a 2-arc coplanar VMAT technique. The whole brain and hippocampus were delineated on fused MRI and CT datasets. The planning target volume (PTV), defined as the whole brain excluding the hippocampal avoidance region, was prescribed 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Plans were evaluated using dosimetric parameters which included the volume of 105% of the prescription dose (V105%) and the maximum dose to the PTV, and the minimum dose to the hippocampus. The planning time, delivery time, and delivery quality assurance (QA) results were also evaluated. Statistical significance was performed between the HyperArc and coplanar VMAT metrics using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance level of 0.05. All plans met RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria. HyperArc plans demonstrated significant improvements in PTV dosimetric quality which included a reduced V105% of 6 ± 7% and decreased maximum dose of 1.3 ± 0.3 Gy, compared to coplanar VMAT. Significant OAR sparing was also found for HyperArc plans that included a decreased minimum dose to the hippocampus of 0.3 ± 0.3 Gy. Coplanar VMAT plans resulted in significantly shorter planning and delivery times, compared to HyperArc, by 2.4 minutes and 1.5 minutes, respectively. No significant difference was found between the delivery QA results. This study demonstrated using Varian HyperArc as a planning and treatment solution for WBRT with hippocampal sparing following RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria. The primary advantages of WBRT with hippocampal sparing using HyperArc, compared to coplanar VMAT, are the gains in OAR sparing and reduced high dose volumes to the PTV., (Copyright © 2021 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of HyperArc (HA) for recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) by comparing it with the CyberKnife system (CK). Fifteen patients with recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer who were treated using the noncoplanar cone-based robotic CK system were enrolled. CK was delivered with a median dose of 37.5 Gy in 5 fractions. The delivered CK treatment plans were the sources for the corresponding homogeneous HA (HA-H) and inhomogeneous HA (HA-IH) plans. The HA-H plans were generated to meet the corresponding treatment plan criteria for the CK plans. The HA-IH plans were designed to emulate the corresponding inhomogeneous CK isodose distributions. These three SBRT treatment plans were compared with target coverage, sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and dose distribution metrics. The HA-H and HA-IH plans consistently exhibited CTV and PTV coverage levels similar or better to those of the CK plans but significantly reduced the dose to OARs. Using the HA techniques (both HA-H and HA-IH plans), the mean maximal doses to the spinal cord, brainstem, optic nerves, and optic chiasm were reduced by approximately 60%, compared to the CK plans. The high dose spillage, conformity, and homogeneity indices of the HA-H plans were significantly better than those of the CK plans. The HA-IH plans showed faster dose falloff and similar conformity of the HA-H plans and dose heterogeneity of the CK plans. Here we demonstrated the HA treatment plan system for recurrent NPC is feasible, either homogeneous or inhomogeneous delivery. Excellent sparing of OARs and dosimetric distribution and very efficient delivery make HA an attractive SBRT technique for recurrent NPC treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We assessed the effect of collimator angle on the dosimetric parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) for collimator-optimized HA (CO-HA) and non-CO-HA (nCO-HA) plans. The nCO-HA and CO-HA plans were retrospectively generated for 26 patients (1 to 8 brain metastases). The dosimetric parameters for planning target volume (homogeneity index [HI]; conformity index [CI]; gradient index [GI]) and for OARs were compared. The modulation complexity score for volumetric modulated arc therapy (MCSV) and monitor units (MUs) were calculated. Doses were measured using the electronic portal imaging device and compared with the expected doses. Dosimetric parameters of the HI, CI, and GI for single (n = 12) and multiple (n = 14) metastases cases were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan provided lower V 4Gy , V 12Gy , V 14Gy , V 16Gy for brain tissue compared to the nCO-HA plan (p < 0.05). Doses for OARs (D 0.1cc ) (brainstem, chiasm, Hippocampus, lens, optic nerves, and retinas) were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan resulted in less complex multileaf collimator (MLC) patterns (MCSV = 0.19 ± 0.04, p < 0.01), lower MUs (8596 ± 1390 MUs, p < 0.01), and shorter beam-on time (6.2 ± 1.0 min, p < 0.01) compared to the nCO-HA plan (0.16 ± 0.04, 9365 ± 1630, and 6.7 ± 1.2 for MCSV, MUs, and beam-on time, respectively). For both treatment approach, the equivalent gamma passing rate was obtained with the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria (p > 0.05). The collimator optimization in the HA planning reduced doses to brain tissues and improved the treatment efficacy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors are involved in an on-going collaboration with Varian Medical Systems and financial support was provided., (Copyright © 2019 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)