Jan Unkelbach1, Marc R Bussière2, Paul H Chapman3, Jay S Loeffler2, Helen A Shih2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: junkelbach@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To optimally exploit fractionation effects in the context of radiosurgery treatments of large cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). In current practice, fractionated treatments divide the dose evenly into several fractions, which generally leads to low obliteration rates. In this work, we investigate the potential benefit of delivering distinct dose distributions in different fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with large cerebral AVMs were reviewed and replanned for intensity modulated arc therapy delivered with conventional photon beams. Treatment plans allowing for different dose distributions in all fractions were obtained by performing treatment plan optimization based on the cumulative biologically effective dose delivered at the end of treatment. RESULTS: We show that distinct treatment plans can be designed for different fractions, such that high single-fraction doses are delivered to complementary parts of the AVM. All plans create a similar dose bath in the surrounding normal brain and thereby exploit the fractionation effect. This partial hypofractionation in the AVM along with fractionation in normal brain achieves a net improvement of the therapeutic ratio. We show that a biological dose reduction of approximately 10% in the healthy brain can be achieved compared with reference treatment schedules that deliver the same dose distribution in all fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting complementary parts of the target volume in different fractions may provide a therapeutic advantage in fractionated radiosurgery treatments of large cerebral AVMs. The strategy allows for a mean dose reduction in normal brain that may be valuable for a patient population with an otherwise normal life expectancy.
PURPOSE: To optimally exploit fractionation effects in the context of radiosurgery treatments of large cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). In current practice, fractionated treatments divide the dose evenly into several fractions, which generally leads to low obliteration rates. In this work, we investigate the potential benefit of delivering distinct dose distributions in different fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with large cerebral AVMs were reviewed and replanned for intensity modulated arc therapy delivered with conventional photon beams. Treatment plans allowing for different dose distributions in all fractions were obtained by performing treatment plan optimization based on the cumulative biologically effective dose delivered at the end of treatment. RESULTS: We show that distinct treatment plans can be designed for different fractions, such that high single-fraction doses are delivered to complementary parts of the AVM. All plans create a similar dose bath in the surrounding normal brain and thereby exploit the fractionation effect. This partial hypofractionation in the AVM along with fractionation in normal brain achieves a net improvement of the therapeutic ratio. We show that a biological dose reduction of approximately 10% in the healthy brain can be achieved compared with reference treatment schedules that deliver the same dose distribution in all fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting complementary parts of the target volume in different fractions may provide a therapeutic advantage in fractionated radiosurgery treatments of large cerebral AVMs. The strategy allows for a mean dose reduction in normal brain that may be valuable for a patient population with an otherwise normal life expectancy.
Authors: Hideyuki Kano; L Dade Lunsford; John C Flickinger; Huai-che Yang; Thomas J Flannery; Nasir R Awan; Ajay Niranjan; Josef Novotny; Douglas Kondziolka Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Søren M Bentzen; Wolfgang Dörr; Reinhard Gahbauer; Roger W Howell; Michael C Joiner; Bleddyn Jones; Dan T L Jones; Albert J van der Kogel; André Wambersie; Gordon Whitmore Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth; Paul H Chapman; Daniel Kim; Andrzej Niemierko; Marc R Bussière; Alison Stringham; Juliane Daartz; Christopher Ogilvy; Jay S Loeffler; Helen A Shih Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Zachary A Seymour; Penny K Sneed; Nalin Gupta; Michael T Lawton; Annette M Molinaro; William Young; Christopher F Dowd; Van V Halbach; Randall T Higashida; Michael W McDermott Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: H Silander; L Pellettieri; P Enblad; A Montelius; E Grusell; C Vallhagen-Dahlgren; U Isacsson; G Nyberg; U Moström; A Lilja; G Gál; E Blomquist Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Shireen Parsai; Richard L J Qiu; Peng Qi; Juan C L Alfonso; Jeremy Donaghue; Eric Murray; David Majkszak; Nicole Dorio; Clifton D Fuller; Kristy Brock; Shlomo Koyfman; Neil Woody; Nikhil Joshi; Jacob G Scott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 2.243