A simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for the whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampus avoidance

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of using a simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) and investigate its dosimetric advantages compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT).

Methods: Ten patients with brain metastase (BM) were included for HA-WBRT. Three treatment plans were generated for each case using IMRT, C-VMAT, and NC-VMAT, respectively.

Results: The dosimetric results of the three techniques complied roughly with the RTOG 0933 criteria. After dose normalization, the V_30Gy of whole brain planned target volume (WB-PTV) in all the plans was controlled at 95%. Homogeneity index (HI) of WB-PTV was significantly reduced in NC-VMAT (0.249 ± 0.017) over IMRT (0.265 ± 0.020, p=0.005) and C-VMAT (0.261 ± 0.014, p=0.020). In terms of conformity index (CI), NC-VMAT could provide a value of 0.821 ± 0.010, which was significantly superior to IMRT (0.788 ± 0.019, p<0.001). According to D_2% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT could provide a value of 35.62 ± 0.37Gy, significantly superior to IMRT (36.43 ± 0.65Gy, p<0.001). According to D_50% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT can achieve the lowest value of 33.18 ± 0.29Gy, significantly different from IMRT (33.47 ± 0.43, p=0.034) and C-VMAT (33.58 ± 0.37, p=0.006). Regarding D_2%, D_98%, and D_mean of hippocampus, NC-VMAT could control them at 15.57 ± 0.18Gy, 8.37 ± 0.26Gy and 11.71 ± 0.48Gy, respectively. D_2% and D_mean of hippocampus for NC-VMAT was significantly lower than IMRT (D_2%: 16.07 ± 0.29Gy, p=0.001 D_mean: 12.18 ± 0.33Gy, p<0.001) and C-VMAT (D_2%: 15.92 ± 0.37Gy, p=0.009 D_mean: 12.21 ± 0.54Gy, p<0.001). For other organs-at-risk (OARs), according to D_2% of the right optic nerves and the right lenses, NC-VMAT had the lowest values of 31.86 ± 1.11Gy and 7.15 ± 0.31Gy, respectively, which were statistically different from the other two techniques. For other organs including eyes and optic chiasm, NC-VMAT could achieve the lowest doses, different from IMRT statistically.

Conclusion: The dosimetry of the three techniques for HA-WBRT could roughly comply with the proposals from RTOG 0933. After dose normalization (D_95%=30Gy), NC-VMAT could significantly improve dose homogeneity and reduce the D_50% in the brain. Besides, it can reduce the D_2% of the hippocampus, optic nerves, and lens. With this approach, an efficient and straightforward plan was accomplished.

Keywords: IMRT; VMAT; brain metastases; coplanar; hippocampal avoiding; noncoplanar; whole brain radiation therapy.

Figure 1

Comparison for mean values of D_98%, D_2%, HI and CI of WB-PTV and D_2% and D_98% of hippocampus for IMRT, C-VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. a. *p<0.05 (one-way ANOVA, LSD post-hoc test) b. HP, hippocampus c. Error bars was caculated by standard deviation (SD).

Figure 2

Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) comparison for WB-PTV and OARs between IMRT, C-VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. a. The purple line represents the WB-PTV b. Green line represents the hippocampus.

Figure 3

Comparison of some special isodose lines distribution between IMRT, C-VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. a. The red line represents the isodose line of 30Gy b. The green line represents the isodose line of 17Gy c. The yellow line represents the isodose line of 9Gy.

Figure 4

The agreement between the measured dose distribution and the original dose distribution for NC-VMAT of one representative patient. a. ArcCHECK: the measured dose distribution b. Plan: the original dose distribution.