Dosimetric comparison of fractionated radiosurgery plans using frameless Gamma Knife ICON and CyberKnife systems with linear accelerator–based radiosurgery plans for multiple large brain metastases

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

For patients with multiple large brain metastases with at least 1 target volume larger than 10 cm3, multifractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (MF-SRS) has commonly been delivered with a linear accelerator (LINAC). Recent advances of Gamma Knife (GK) units with kilovolt cone-beam CT and CyberKnife (CK) units with multileaf collimators also make them attractive choices. The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetry of MF-SRS plans deliverable on GK, CK, and LINAC and to discuss related clinical issues.

METHODS

Ten patients with 2 or more large brain metastases who had been treated with MF-SRS on LINAC were identified. The median planning target volume was 18.31 cm3 (mean 21.31 cm3, range 3.42–49.97 cm3), and the median prescribed dose was 27.0 Gy (mean 26.7 Gy, range 21–30 Gy), administered in 3 to 5 fractions. Clinical LINAC treatment plans were generated using inverse planning with intensity modulation on a Pinnacle treatment planning system (version 9.10) for the Varian TrueBeam STx system. GK and CK planning were retrospectively performed using Leksell GammaPlan version 10.1 and Accuray Precision version 1.1.0.0 for the CK M6 system. Tumor coverage, Paddick conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), and normal brain tissue receiving 4, 12, and 20 Gy were used to compare plan quality. Net beam-on time and approximate planning time were also collected for all cases.

RESULTS

Plans from all 3 modalities satisfied clinical requirements in target coverage and normal tissue sparing. The mean CI was comparable (0.79, 0.78, and 0.76) for the GK, CK, and LINAC plans. The mean GI was 3.1 for both the GK and the CK plans, whereas the mean GI of the LINAC plans was 4.1. The lower GI of the GK and CK plans would have resulted in significantly lower normal brain volumes receiving a medium or high dose. On average, GK and CK plans spared the normal brain volume receiving at least 12 Gy and 20 Gy by approximately 20% in comparison with the LINAC plans. However, the mean beam-on time of GK (∼ 64 minutes assuming a dose rate of 2.5 Gy/minute) plans was significantly longer than that of CK (∼ 31 minutes) or LINAC (∼ 4 minutes) plans.

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 modalities are capable of treating multiple large brain lesions with MF-SRS. GK has the most flexible workflow and excellent dosimetry, but could be limited by the treatment time. CK has dosimetry comparable to that of GK with a consistent treatment time of approximately 30 minutes. LINAC has a much shorter treatment time, but residual rotational error could be a concern.

ABBREVIATIONS CBCT = cone-beam CT; CI = Paddick conformity index; CK = CyberKnife; GI = gradient index; GK = Gamma Knife; HI = homogeneity index; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy; LINAC = linear accelerator; MF-SRS = multifraction SRS; MLC = multileaf collimator; OBI = on-board image; PIV = prescription isodose volume; PTV = planning target volume; QA = quality assurance; SF-SRS = single-fraction SRS; SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery; TC = target coverage; TPS = treatment planning system; TV = target volume; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Article Information

Correspondence Eun Young Han: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. ehan@mdanderson.org.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online April 5, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.1.JNS182769.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Dose distribution of GK, CK, and VMAT plans in the coronal planes for patient 5. Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Box-and-whisker plot for V4Gy (A), V12Gy (B), and V20Gy (C) values for LINAC, GK, and CK plans. The whiskers shows the minimum and maximum values and the 3 horizontal lines in each box represent the first quartile, second quartile (median), and third quartile, respectively. Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Beam-on time for LINAC and GK and beam delivery (beam-on and tumor tracking) time for CK plans. Figure is available in color online only.

References

  • 1

    Aoyama HShirato HTago MNakagawa KToyoda THatano K: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 295:248324912006

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Brown PDJaeckle KBallman KVFarace ECerhan JHAnderson SK: Effect of radiosurgery alone vs radiosurgery with whole brain radiation therapy on cognitive function in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316:4014092016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chang ELWefel JSHess KRAllen PKLang FFKornguth DG: Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 10:103710442009

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cho YHLee JMLee DPark JHYoon KKim SO: Experiences on two different stereotactic radiosurgery modalities of Gamma Knife and Cyberknife in treating brain metastases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:200320092015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chung HTPark WYKim THKim YKChun KJ: Assessment of the accuracy and stability of frameless gamma knife radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19:1481542018

  • 6

    Ding CSaw CBTimmerman RD: Cyberknife stereotactic radiosurgery and radiation therapy treatment planning system. Med Dosim 43:1291402018

  • 7

    Dong PPérez-Andújar APinnaduwage DBraunstein STheodosopoulos PMcDermott M: Dosimetric characterization of hypofractionated Gamma Knife radiosurgery of large or complex brain tumors versus linear accelerator-based treatments. J Neurosurg 125 (Suppl 1):971032016

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Eaton DJLee JPaddick I: Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: results of multicenter benchmark planning studies. Pract Radiat Oncol 8:e212e2202018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kocher MSoffietti RAbacioglu UVillà SFauchon FBaumert BG: Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J Clin Oncol 29:1341412011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ma LNichol AHossain SWang BPetti PVellani R: Variable dose interplay effects across radiosurgical apparatus in treating multiple brain metastases. Int J CARS 9:107910862014

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Ma LPetti PWang BDescovich MChuang CBarani IJ: Apparatus dependence of normal brain tissue dose in stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases. J Neurosurg 114:158015842011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Minniti GScaringi CPaolini SLanzetta GRomano ACicone F: Single-fraction versus multifraction (3 × 9 Gy) stereotactic radiosurgery for large (>2 cm) brain metastases: a comparative analysis of local control and risk of radiation-induced brain necrosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95:114211482016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Okamoto HHamada MSakamoto EWakita ANakamura SKato T: Log-file analysis of accuracy of beam localization for brain tumor treatment by CyberKnife. Pract Radiat Oncol 6:e361e3672016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Paddick I: A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 93 (Suppl 3):2192222000

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Potrebko PSKeller AAll SSejpal SPepe JSaigal K: GammaKnife versus VMAT radiosurgery plan quality for many brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19:1591652018

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Shaw EScott CSouhami LDinapoli RKline RLoeffler J: Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:2912982000

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sio TTJang SLee SWCurran BPyakuryal APSternick ES: Comparing Gamma Knife and CyberKnife in patients with brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:40952014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Thomas EMPopple RAWu XClark GMMarkert JMGuthrie BL: Comparison of plan quality and delivery time between volumetric arc therapy (RapidArc) and Gamma Knife radiosurgery for multiple cranial metastases. Neurosurgery 75:4094182014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Treuer HHoevels MLuyken KVisser-Vandewalle VWirths JKocher M: Intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery with an adapted linear accelerator vs. robotic radiosurgery: Comparison of dosimetric treatment plan quality. Strahlenther Onkol 191:4704762015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Zhang IAntone JLi JSaha SRiegel ACVijeh L: Hippocampal-sparing and target volume coverage in treating 3 to 10 brain metastases: A comparison of Gamma Knife, single-isocenter VMAT, CyberKnife, and TomoTherapy stereotactic radiosurgery. Pract Radiat Oncol 7:1831892017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 453 453 92
Full Text Views 96 96 16
PDF Downloads 68 68 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar