Impact of MLC error on dose distribution in SRS treatment of single-isocenter multiple brain metastases: Comparison between DCAT and VMAT techniques
Abstract
Background: Dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve near equal plan quality in single-isocenter multiple target stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors during beam delivery on the dose distribution for each technique.
Materials and methods: A 10-mm diameter delineation of the three targets was employed on the computed tomography images of a head phantom, and the reference plans were created using the DCAT and VMAT. We simulated the systematic opened and closed MLC errors. 10 MLC error plans with different magnitudes of errors were created in each technique. We investigated the relationship between the magnitude of MLC errors and the change in dose-volume histogram parameters of the targets and normal brain tissue.
Results: The percentage change in the D98% (Gy) and D0.1% (Gy) of the target per millimeter of the MLC errors were 13.3% and 2.7% for the DCAT and 15.3% and 9.3% for the VMAT, respectively. The fluctuations of the maximum dose were very small for the DCAT compared to the VMAT. Changes in the V12Gy (cc) of the normal brain tissue were 47.1%/mm and 53.2%/mm for the DCAT and VMAT, respectively, which are comparable changes for both techniques.
Conclusions: Although the impact of MLC errors on the target coverage and the normal brain tissue is comparable for both techniques, the internal dose of the targets generated by the DCAT technique is robust to the MLC errors.
Keywords: brain SRSDCATVMATMLC errorsingle-isocenter
References
- Gevaert T, Steenbeke F, Pellegri L, et al. Evaluation of a dedicated brain metastases treatment planning optimization for radiosurgery: a new treatment paradigm? Radiat Oncol. 2016; 11: 13.
- Ohira S, Ueda Y, Akino Y, et al. HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach. Radiat Oncol. 2018; 13(1): 13.
- Raza GH, Capone L, Tini P, et al. Single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: dosimetric evaluation of two automated treatment planning systems. Radiat Oncol. 2022; 17(1): 116.
- Chea M, Fezzani K, Jacob J, et al. Dosimetric study between a single isocenter dynamic conformal arc therapy technique and Gamma Knife radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases treatment: impact of target volume geometrical characteristics. Radiat Oncol. 2021; 16(1): 45.
- Fung NT, Wong WL, Lee MC, et al. Geometric and dosimetric consequences of intra-fractional movement in single isocenter non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery. Radiat Oncol. 2023; 18(1): 9.
- Oliver M, Gagne I, Bush K, et al. Clinical significance of multi-leaf collimator positional errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 97(3): 554–560.
- Deng J, Huang Y, Wu X, et al. Comparison of dosimetric effects of MLC positional errors on VMAT and IMRT plans for SBRT radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS One. 2022; 17(12): e0278422.
- Ruggieri R, Naccarato S, Mazzola R, et al. Linac-based radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: Comparison between two mono-isocenter techniques with multiple non-coplanar arcs. Radiother Oncol. 2019; 132: 70–78.
- Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. J Neurosurg. 2000; 93(supplement_3): 219–222.
- Paddick I, Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006; 105 Suppl: 194–201.
- Pogson EM, Aruguman S, Hansen CR, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT, manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2017; 42: 55–66.
- LoSasso T, Chui CS, Ling CC. Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy. Med Phys. 1998; 25(10): 1919–1927.
- Prentou G, Pappas EP, Prentou E, et al. Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(8): e13708.
- Minniti G, Clarke E, Lanzetta G, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: analysis of outcome and risk of brain radionecrosis. Radiat Oncol. 2011; 6: 48.
- Xu Q, Fan J, Grimm J, et al. The dosimetric impact of the prescription isodose line (IDL) on the quality of robotic stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans. Med Phys. 2017; 44(12): 6159–6165.
- Zhang Q, Zheng D, Lei Y, et al. A new variable for SRS plan quality evaluation based on normal tissue sparing: the effect of prescription isodose levels. Br J Radiol. 2014; 87(1043): 20140362.
- Romano KD, Trifiletti DM, Garda A, et al. Choosing a Prescription Isodose in Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: Implications for Local Control. World Neurosurg. 2017; 98: 761–767.e1.
- Abraham C, Garsa A, Badiyan SN, et al. Internal dose escalation is associated with increased local control for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018; 3(2): 146–153.
- Khong J, Govindaraj R, Ramm D, et al. Cochlear sparing in LINAC-based radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans. Radiat Oncol. 2023; 18(1): 2.
- Torizuka D, Uto M, Takehana K, et al. Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis. J Radiat Res. 2021 [Epub ahead of print].
- Hofmaier J, Bodensohn R, Garny S, et al. Single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases: dosimetric comparison of VMAT and a dedicated DCAT planning tool. Radiat Oncol. 2019; 14(1): 103.
- Kielar K, Mok E, Wang L, et al. SU-E-T-540: Verification of Dosimetric Accuracy on the TrueBeam STx: Rounded Leaf Effect of the High Definition MLC. Med Phys. 2011; 38(6Part19): 3613–3613.
- Isono M, Akino Y, Mizuno H, et al. Inter-unit variability of multi-leaf collimator parameters for IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: a multi-institutional survey. J Radiat Res. 2020; 61(2): 307–313.
- Shende R, Patel G. Validation of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) prior to its implementation in Treatment Planning System (TPS): TrueBeam™ millennium 120 leaf MLC. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2017; 22(6): 485–494.
- Kim J, Han JS, Hsia AnT, et al. Relationship between dosimetric leaf gap and dose calculation errors for high definition multi-leaf collimators in radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018; 5: 31–36.
- Vieillevigne L, Khamphan C, Saez J, et al. On the need for tuning the dosimetric leaf gap for stereotactic treatment plans in the Eclipse treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(7): 68–77.
- Bruschi A, Esposito M, Pini S, et al. How the detector resolution affects the clinical significance of SBRT pre-treatment quality assurance results. Phys Med. 2018; 49: 129–134.
- Chun M, Kim JI, Oh DH, et al. Effect of dose grid resolution on the results of patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therap. Int J Radiat Res. 2020; 3: 521–530.
- Kumaraswamy LK, Schmitt JD, Bailey DW, et al. Spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap and its impact on dose delivery. Med Phys. 2014; 41(11): 111711.