Program Information
Evaluation of a Mono-Isocentric Treatment Planning Software for Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases
E Sham*, M Sattarivand , L Mulroy , M Yewondwossen , Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, AB
Presentations
SU-F-T-618 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose: To evaluate planning performance of an automated treatment planning software (BrainLAB; Elements) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of multiple brain metastases.
Methods: Brainlab’s Multiple Metastases Elements (MME) uses single isocentric technique to treat up to 10 cranial planning target volumes (PTVs). The planning algorithm of the MME accounts for multiple PTVs overlapping with one another on the beam eyes view (BEV) and automatically selects a subset of all overlapping PTVs on each arc for sparing normal tissues in the brain. The algorithm also optimizes collimator angles, margins between multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) and PTVs, as well as monitor units (MUs) using minimization of conformity index (CI) for all targets. Planning performance was evaluated by comparing the MME-calculated treatment plan parameters with the same parameters calculated with the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) optimization on Varian’s Eclipse platform.
Results: Figures 1 to 3 compare several treatment plan outcomes calculated between the MME and VMAT for 5 clinical multi-targets SRS patient plans. Prescribed target dose was volume-dependent and defined based on the RTOG recommendation. For a total number of 18 PTV’s, mean values for the CI, PITV, and GI were comparable between the MME and VMAT within one standard deviation (σ). However, MME-calculated MDPD was larger than the same VMAT-calculated parameter. While both techniques delivered similar maximum point doses to the critical cranial structures and total MU’s for the 5 patient plans, the MME required less treatment planning time by an order of magnitude compared to VMAT.
Conclusion: The MME and VMAT produce similar plan qualities in terms of MUs, target dose conformation, and OAR dose sparing. While the selective use of PTVs for arc-optimization with the MME reduces significantly the total planning time in comparison to VMAT, the target dose homogeneity was also compromised due to its simplified inverse planning algorithm used.
Contact Email: