Justin Roper1, Vorakarn Chanyavanich2, Gregory Betzel2, Jeffrey Switchenko3, Anees Dhabaan2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: justin.roper@emory.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the dosimetric effects of rotational errors on target coverage using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study included 50 SRS cases, each with 2 intracranial planning target volumes (PTVs). Both PTVs were planned for simultaneous treatment to 21 Gy using a single-isocenter, noncoplanar VMAT SRS technique. Rotational errors of 0.5°, 1.0°, and 2.0° were simulated about all axes. The dose to 95% of the PTV (D95) and the volume covered by 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) were evaluated using multivariate analysis to determine how PTV coverage was related to PTV volume, PTV separation, and rotational error. RESULTS: At 0.5° rotational error, D95 values and V95 coverage rates were ≥95% in all cases. For rotational errors of 1.0°, 7% of targets had D95 and V95 values <95%. Coverage worsened substantially when the rotational error increased to 2.0°: D95 and V95 values were >95% for only 63% of the targets. Multivariate analysis showed that PTV volume and distance to isocenter were strong predictors of target coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of rotational errors on target coverage were studied across a broad range of SRS cases. In general, the risk of compromised coverage increased with decreasing target volume, increasing rotational error and increasing distance between targets. Multivariate regression models from this study may be used to quantify the dosimetric effects of rotational errors on target coverage given patient-specific input parameters of PTV volume and distance to isocenter.
PURPOSE: To determine the dosimetric effects of rotational errors on target coverage using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study included 50 SRS cases, each with 2 intracranial planning target volumes (PTVs). Both PTVs were planned for simultaneous treatment to 21 Gy using a single-isocenter, noncoplanar VMAT SRS technique. Rotational errors of 0.5°, 1.0°, and 2.0° were simulated about all axes. The dose to 95% of the PTV (D95) and the volume covered by 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) were evaluated using multivariate analysis to determine how PTV coverage was related to PTV volume, PTV separation, and rotational error. RESULTS: At 0.5° rotational error, D95 values and V95 coverage rates were ≥95% in all cases. For rotational errors of 1.0°, 7% of targets had D95 and V95 values <95%. Coverage worsened substantially when the rotational error increased to 2.0°: D95 and V95 values were >95% for only 63% of the targets. Multivariate analysis showed that PTV volume and distance to isocenter were strong predictors of target coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of rotational errors on target coverage were studied across a broad range of SRS cases. In general, the risk of compromised coverage increased with decreasing target volume, increasing rotational error and increasing distance between targets. Multivariate regression models from this study may be used to quantify the dosimetric effects of rotational errors on target coverage given patient-specific input parameters of PTV volume and distance to isocenter.
Authors: Ann Van Esch; Laura Tillikainen; Jukka Pyykkonen; Mikko Tenhunen; Hannu Helminen; Sami Siljamäki; Jyrki Alakuijala; Marta Paiusco; Mauro Lori; Dominique P Huyskens Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Dante E Roa; Daniel C Schiffner; Juying Zhang; Salam N Dietrich; Jeffrey V Kuo; Jason Wong; Nilam S Ramsinghani; Muthana S A L Al-Ghazi Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Matthias Guckenberger; Johannes Roesch; Kurt Baier; Reinhart A Sweeney; Michael Flentje Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Anees Dhabaan; Eduard Schreibmann; Arsalan Siddiqi; Eric Elder; Tim Fox; Tomi Ogunleye; Natia Esiashvili; Walter Curran; Ian Crocker; Hui-Kuo Shu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Hania A Al-Hallaq; Steven Chmura; Joseph K Salama; Kathryn A Winter; Clifford G Robinson; Thomas M Pisansky; Virginia Borges; Jessica R Lowenstein; Susan McNulty; James M Galvin; David S Followill; Robert D Timmerman; Julia R White; Ying Xiao; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-05-20
Authors: Esther Decabooter; Ans Cc Swinnen; Michel C Öllers; Fabian Göpfert; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Edward T Cullom; Yuqing Xia; Kai-Cheng Chuang; Zachary W Gude; Yana Zlateva; Justus D Adamson; William M Giles Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.102