Vol 26, No 1 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-01-22

open access

Page views 658
Article views/downloads 572
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Feasibility and potential advantages using VMAT in SRS metastasis treatments

Maria Jose Perez-Calatayud1, Antonio Vicente Menendez Lopez2, Francisco Javier Celada-Alvarez3, Antonio Jose Conde-Moreno3, Mariola Bernisz3, Françoise Lliso3, Vicente Carmona3, Jose Gimeno-Olmos3, Carlos Botella-Asuncion2, Jose Perez-Calatayud34
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):119-127.


Background: Utilization of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) has become the technique of choice as opposed to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits in terms of normal tissue (NT) and dose escalation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in SRS metastasis treatment. A VMAT optimization procedure has therefore been developed for internal dose scaling which minimizes planner dependence.

Materials and methods: Five patient-plans incorporating treatment with frame-based SRS with dynamic conformal arc technique (DA) were re-planned for VMAT. The lesions selected were between 4–6 cm3. The same geometry used in the DA plans was maintained for the VMAT cases. A VMAT planning procedure was performed attempting to scale the dose in inner auxiliary volumes, and to explore the potential for dose scaling with this technique. Comparison of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were obtained.

Results: VMAT allows a superior NT sparing plus conformity and dose scaling using the auxiliary volumes. The VMAT results were significantly superior in NT sparing, improving both the V10 and V12 values in all cases, with a 2–3 cm3 saving. In addition, VMAT improves the dose coverage D95 by about 0.5 Gy. The objective of dose escalation was achieved with VMAT with an increment of the Dmean and the Dmedian of about 2 Gy.

Conclusions: This work shows a benefit of VMAT in SRS treatment with significant NT sparing. A VMAT optimization procedure, based on auxiliary inner volumes, has been developed, enabling internal dose escalation.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Posner JB, Chernik NL. Intracranial metastases from systemic cancer. Adv Neurol. 1978; 19: 579–592.
  2. Patchell R. The management of brain metastases. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003; 29(6): 533–540.
  3. Nussbaum ES, Djalilian HR, Cho KH, et al. Brain metastases. Histology, multiplicity, surgery, and survival. Cancer. 1996; 78(8): 1781–1788.
  4. Bradley KA, Mehta MP. Management of brain metastases. Semin Oncol. 2004; 31(5): 693–701.
  5. Grunert M, Kassubek R, Danz B, et al. Radiation and Brain Tumors: An Overview. Crit Rev Oncog. 2018; 23(1-2): 119–138.
  6. Minniti G, Filippi AR, Osti MF, et al. Radiation therapy for older patients with brain tumors. Radiat Oncol. 2017; 12(1): 101.
  7. Thomas SS, Dunbar EM. Modern multidisciplinary management of brain metastases. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010; 12(1): 34–40.
  8. Videtic GMM, Gaspar LE, Aref AM, et al. Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology-Brain Metastases. American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria on multiple brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 75(4): 961–965.
  9. Linskey ME, Andrews DW, Asher AL, et al. The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol. 2010; 96(1): 45–68.
  10. Kocher M, Wittig A, Piroth MD, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases. A report of the DEGRO Working Group on Stereotactic Radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014; 190(6): 521–532.
  11. Mehta MP, Tsao MN, Whelan TJ, et al. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role of radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 63(1): 37–46.
  12. Sallabanda M, García-Berrocal MI, Romero J, et al. Hypofractionated Re-irradiation after Maximal Surgical Resection for Recurrent Glioblastoma: Therapeutic Adequacy and Its Prognosticators of Survival. Yonsei Med J. 2018; 59(2): 194–201.
  13. Tsao M, Xu W, Sahgal A. A meta-analysis evaluating stereotactic radiosurgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, or both for patients presenting with a limited number of brain metastases. Cancer. 2012; 118(9): 2486–2493.
  14. Chang EL, Wefel JS, Hess KR, et al. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(11): 1037–1044.
  15. Higuchi Y, Yamamoto M, Serizawa T, et al. Modern management for brain metastasis patients using stereotactic radiosurgery: literature review and the authors' gamma knife treatment experiences. Cancer Manag Res. 2018; 10: 1889–1899.
  16. Barbour AB, Jacobs CD, Williamson H, et al. Radiation Therapy Practice Patterns for Brain Metastases in the United States in the Stereotactic Radiosurgery Era. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020; 5(1): 43–52.
  17. Nieder C, Grosu AL, Gaspar LE. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases: a systematic review. Radiat Oncol. 2014; 9: 155.
  18. Hazard LJ, Wang B, Skidmore TB, et al. Conformity of LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery using dynamic conformal arcs and micro-multileaf collimator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73(2): 562–570.
  19. Teoh M, Clark CH, Wood K, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol. 2011; 84(1007): 967–996.
  20. Roa DE, Schiffner DC, Zhang J, et al. The use of RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy to deliver stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy to intracranial and extracranial targets. Med Dosim. 2012; 37(3): 257–264.
  21. Grimm MA, Köppen U, Stieler F, et al. Prospective assessment of mask versus frame fixation during Gamma Knife treatment for brain metastases. Radiother Oncol. 2020; 147: 195–199.
  22. 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.
  23. Sneed PK, Mendez J, Vemer-van den Hoek JGM, et al. Adverse radiation effect after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: incidence, time course, and risk factors. J Neurosurg. 2015; 123(2): 373–386.
  24. Korytko T, Radivoyevitch T, Colussi V, et al. 12 Gy gamma knife radiosurgical volume is a predictor for radiation necrosis in non-AVM intracranial tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64(2): 419–424.
  25. Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, et al. Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77(4): 996–1001.
  26. Hong LX, Garg M, Lasala P, et al. Experience of micromultileaf collimator linear accelerator based single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: tumor dose inhomogeneity, conformity, and dose fall off. Med Phys. 2011; 38(3): 1239–1247.
  27. Amsbaugh MJ, Yusuf MB, Gaskins J, et al. A Dose-Volume Response Model for Brain Metastases Treated With Frameless Single-Fraction Robotic Radiosurgery: Seeking to Better Predict Response to Treatment. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 16(3): 344–351.
  28. Marcrom SR, McDonald AM, Thompson JW, et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for intact brain metastases. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017; 2(4): 564–571.
  29. Grimm MA, Köppen U, Stieler F, et al. Prospective assessment of mask versus frame fixation during Gamma Knife treatment for brain metastases. Radiother Oncol. 2020; 147: 195–199.
  30. Munshi A, Sarkar B, Roy S, et al. Dose fall-off patterns with volumetric modulated arc therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy including the "organ at risk" effect. Experience of linear accelerator-based frameless radiosurgery from a single institution. Cancer Radiother. 2019; 23(2): 138–146.

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy