Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.

This study aimed to compare the dosimetric attributes of two multi-leaf collimator based techniques, HyperArc and Incise CyberKnife, in the treatment of brain metastases. 17 cases of brain metastases were selected including 6 patients of single lesion and 11 patients of multiple lesions. Treatment plans of HyperArc and CyberKnife were designed in Eclipse 15.5 and Precision 1.0, respectively, and transferred to Velocity 3.2 for comparison. HyperArc plans provided superior Conformity Index (0.91 ± 0.06 vs. 0.77 ± 0.07, p < 0.01) with reduced dose distribution in organs at risk (Dmax, p < 0.05) and lower normal tissue exposure (V4Gy-V20Gy, p < 0.05) in contrast to CyberKnife plans, although the Gradient Indexes were similar. CyberKnife plans showed higher Homogeneity Index (1.54 ± 0.17 vs. 1.39 ± 0.09, p < 0.05) and increased D2% and D50% in the target (p < 0.05). Additionally, HyperArc plans had significantly fewer Monitor Units (MUs) and beam-on time (p < 0.01). HyperArc plans demonstrated superior performance compared with MLC-based CyberKnife plans in terms of conformity and the sparing of critical organs and normal tissues, although no significant difference in GI outcomes was noted. Conversely, CyberKnife plans achieved a higher target dose and HI. The study suggests that HyperArc is more efficient and particularly suitable for treating larger lesions in brain metastases.

Zhu L ，Dong S ，Sun L ，Xiao Y ，Zhong Y ，Pan M ，Wang Y ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Automated noncoplanar treatment planning strategy in stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple cranial metastases: HyperArc and CyberKnife dose distributions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric effects of HyperArc-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and a robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife for multiple cranial metastases. In total, 11 cancer patients with multiple cranial metastases (3 to 5 tumors) treated with CyberKnife were examined. These patients were replanned using HyperArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA). HyperArc plan were designed using 4 noncoplanar arc single-isocenter VMAT in 6 MV flattening filter free mode for simulated delivery with the True beam STx (Varian). The prescription dose was 23 Gy at single fraction. Dosimetric differences and blinded clinician scoring differences were evaluated. Conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 0.60 ± 0.11 and 3.94 ± 0.74, respectively, for the CyberKnife plan and 0.87 ± 0.08 and 5.31 ± 1.42, respectively, for the HyperArc plan (p < 0.05). Total brain V12-gross tumor volumes (GTVs) for the CyberKnife and HyperArc plans were 5.26 ± 2.83 and 4.02 ± 1.71 cm3, respectively. These results indicate that HyperArc plan showed better CI and total brain V12-GTV, while CyberKnife plan showed better GI. A blinded physician scoring evaluation did not show significant differences between CyberKnife and HyperArc plans. The HyperArc-based SRS plan is comparable with the CyberKnife plan, suggesting a greater potential to emerge as a suitable tool for SRS of multiple brain metastases.

Kadoya N ，Abe Y ，Kajikawa T ，Ito K ，Yamamoto T ，Umezawa R ，Chiba T ，Katsuta Y ，Takayama Y ，Kato T ，Kikuchi Y ，Jingu K ... -  《-》

Dosimetric performance of two linear accelerator-based radiosurgery systems to treat single and multiplebrain metastases.

Ueda Y ，Ohira S ，Yamazaki H ，Mabuchi N ，Higashinaka N ，Miyazaki M ，Teshima T ... -  《-》

Comparison between the HyperArc™ technique and the CyberKnife® technique for stereotactic treatment of brain metastases.

The purpose of this study was to compare the planimetric capacities between HyperArc™-based stereotactic radiosurgery and robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife® M6 for single and multiple cranial metastases. We evaluated 51 treatment plans for cranial metastases, including 30 patients with a single lesion and 21 patients with multiple lesions, treated with the CyberKnife® M6. These treatment plans were optimized using the HyperArc™ (HA) system with the TrueBeam. The comparison of the quality of the treatment plans between the two treatment techniques (CyberKnife and HyperArc) was performed using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric parameters were compared for target volumes and organs at risk. Coverage of the target volumes was equivalent between the two techniques, whereas median Paddick conformity index and median gradient index for all target volumes were 0.9 and 3.4, respectively for HyperArc plans, and 0.8 and 4.5 for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001). The median dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) for HyperArc and CyberKnife plans were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively. Total brain V18Gy and V12Gy-GTVs were 11cm3 and 20.2cm3 for HyperArc plans versus 18cm3 and 34.1cm3 for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001). The HyperArc provided better brain sparing, with a significant reduction in V12Gy and V18Gy, associated with a lower gradient index, whereas the CyberKnife gave a higher median GTV dose. The HyperArc technique seems to be more appropriate for multiple cranial metastases and for large single metastatic lesions.

Guinement L ，Salleron J ，Buchheit I ，Gérard K ，Faivre JC ，Royer P ，Marchesi V ... -  《-》

Effect of collimator angle on HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery planning for single and multiple brain metastases.

We assessed the effect of collimator angle on the dosimetric parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) for collimator-optimized HA (CO-HA) and non-CO-HA (nCO-HA) plans. The nCO-HA and CO-HA plans were retrospectively generated for 26 patients (1 to 8 brain metastases). The dosimetric parameters for planning target volume (homogeneity index [HI]; conformity index [CI]; gradient index [GI]) and for OARs were compared. The modulation complexity score for volumetric modulated arc therapy (MCSV) and monitor units (MUs) were calculated. Doses were measured using the electronic portal imaging device and compared with the expected doses. Dosimetric parameters of the HI, CI, and GI for single (n = 12) and multiple (n = 14) metastases cases were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan provided lower V4Gy, V12Gy, V14Gy, V16Gy for brain tissue compared to the nCO-HA plan (p < 0.05). Doses for OARs (D0.1cc) (brainstem, chiasm, Hippocampus, lens, optic nerves, and retinas) were comparable (p > 0.05). For multiple metastases cases, the CO-HA plan resulted in less complex multileaf collimator (MLC) patterns (MCSV = 0.19 ± 0.04, p < 0.01), lower MUs (8596 ± 1390 MUs, p < 0.01), and shorter beam-on time (6.2 ± 1.0 min, p < 0.01) compared to the nCO-HA plan (0.16 ± 0.04, 9365 ± 1630, and 6.7 ± 1.2 for MCSV, MUs, and beam-on time, respectively). For both treatment approach, the equivalent gamma passing rate was obtained with the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria (p > 0.05). The collimator optimization in the HA planning reduced doses to brain tissues and improved the treatment efficacy.

Ohira S ，Sagawa T ，Ueda Y ，Inui S ，Masaoka A ，Akino Y ，Mizuno H ，Miyazaki M ，Koizumi M ，Teshima T ... -  《-》