TITLE:
Dosimetric Advantages of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Based Coronal Arc Delivery Technique in Brain Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Feasibility Study
AUTHORS:
Gurtej S. Gill, Raphael Y. Jakubovic, Jameson Baker, Terry Button, Jenghwa Chang
KEYWORDS:
VMAT, Coronal Arc, π-Geometry, Coplanar, Non-Coplanar, Stereotactic Radiosurgery, Coronal Arc
JOURNAL NAME:
International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology,
Vol.8 No.2,
April
3,
2019
ABSTRACT: The feasibility of a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based coronal arc (cARC) technique for treating a single brain metastasis or lesion proximal to the brainstem or optic chiasm was evaluated. Coplanar (CP) and non-coplanar (NCP) treatment plans to an anthropomorphic head/neck phantom scanned head-first supine were compared to a cARC plan with the phantom rotated vertically. A set of planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured centrally between the brainstem and optic chiasm (“Ant PTVs”) and posterior to brainstem (“Post PTVs”). Dosimetric indices such as conformity index (C.I.), gradient measure (G.M.), and dose volume histograms (DVHs) were compared for CP, NCP and cARC techniques. The TG101 guidelines for organs-at-risk (OARs), and 95% of PTV receiving at least 100% of the prescription dose (D95 = 100%) were used as plan objectives. Reductions in D50 and D30 to the brainstem of 85.1% ± 3.9% and 87.6% ± 3.2%, respectively were seen for “Post PTVs”, and 51.1% ± 17.8% and 85.6% ± 6.0% respectively for “Ant PTVs” using cARC versus CP (p ≤ 0.01). For chiasm, reductions of D50 and D30 were 61.7% ± 3.2% and 44.2% ± 8.9% for “Ant PTVs”, by 69.3% ± 8.0% and 74.3% ± 8.2% for “Post PTVs” (p ≤ 0.01). Comparing cARC to NCP led to similar dosimetric improvements. The conformity index (C.I.) was measured to be 1.101 ± 0.038, 1.088 ± 0.054, and 1.060 ± 0.040 for cARC, CP and NCP respectively (p ≤ 0.01). The overall GM in cm was 0.581 ± 0.097, 0.708 ± 0.064, and 0.476 ± 0.050 for cARC, CP and NCP respectively (p ≤ 0.01). The mean distance gradient fall-off (in cm) was 0.249 ± 0.038 (cARC), 0.749 ± 0.107 (CP), and 0.621 ± 0.068 (NCP) at the center slice in anterior-posterior direction of the target volume (p ≤ 0.01). The objective of this study is to compare the dosimetric indices of cARC with CP and NCP techniques. In conclusion, cARC can provide improved dosimetry as compared to CP and NCP for lesion proximal to the brainstem or optic chiasm.