Impact of collimator leaf width and treatment technique on stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy plans for intra- and extracranial lesions

BackgroundThis study evaluated the dosimetric impact of various treatment techniques as well as collimator leaf width (2.5 vs 5 mm) for three groups of tumors – spine tumors, brain tumors abutting the brainstem, and liver tumors. These lesions often present challenges in maximizing dose to target volumes without exceeding critical organ tolerance. Specifically, this study evaluated the dosimetric benefits of various techniques and collimator leaf sizes as a function of lesion size and shape.MethodsFifteen cases (5 for each site) were studied retrospectively. All lesions either abutted or were an integral part of critical structures (brainstem, liver or spinal cord). For brain and liver lesions, treatment plans using a 3D-conformal static technique (3D), dynamic conformal arcs (DARC) or intensity modulation (IMRT) were designed with a conventional linear accelerator with standard 5 mm leaf width multi-leaf collimator, and a linear accelerator dedicated for radiosurgery and hypofractionated therapy with a 2.5 mm leaf width collimator. For the concave spine lesions, intensity modulation was required to provide adequate conformality; hence, only IMRT plans were evaluated using either the standard or small leaf-width collimators.A total of 70 treatment plans were generated and each plan was individually optimized according to the technique employed. The Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to separate the impact of treatment technique from the MLC system on plan outcome, and t-tests were performed to evaluate statistical differences in target coverage and organ sparing between plans.ResultsThe lesions ranged in size from 2.6 to 12.5 cc, 17.5 to 153 cc, and 20.9 to 87.7 cc for the brain, liver, and spine groups, respectively. As a group, brain lesions were smaller than spine and liver lesions. While brain and liver lesions were primarily ellipsoidal, spine lesions were more complex in shape, as they were all concave. Therefore, the brain and the liver groups were compared for volume effect, and the liver and spine groups were compared for shape. For the brain and liver groups, both the radiosurgery MLC and the IMRT technique contributed to the dose sparing of organs-at-risk(OARs), as dose in the high-dose regions of these OARs was reduced up to 15%, compared to the non-IMRT techniques employing a 5 mm leaf-width collimator. Also, the dose reduction contributed by the fine leaf-width MLC decreased, as dose savings at all levels diminished from 4 – 11% for the brain group to 1 – 5% for the liver group, as the target structures decreased in volume. The fine leaf-width collimator significantly improved spinal cord sparing, with dose reductions of 14 – 19% in high to middle dose regions, compared to the 5 mm leaf width collimator.ConclusionThe fine leaf-width MLC in combination with the IMRT technique can yield dosimetric benefits in radiosurgery and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Treatment of small lesions in cases involving complex target/OAR geometry will especially benefit from use of a fine leaf-width MLC and the use of IMRT.

[1]  J. Rock,et al.  Technical and Clinical Experience with Spine Radiosurgery: A New Technology for Management of Localized Spine Metastases , 2007, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[2]  J. Perks,et al.  Comparison of a micro-multileaf collimator with a 5-mm-leaf-width collimator for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  R Mohan,et al.  A comparison of three stereotactic radiotherapy techniques; ARCS vs. noncoplanar fixed fields vs. intensity modulation. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Hui Yan,et al.  A technique of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) for spinal tumors. , 2002, Medical physics.

[5]  J. Rock,et al.  Pain control by image-guided radiosurgery for solitary spinal metastasis. , 2008, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[6]  M Saiful Huq,et al.  A dosimetric comparison of various multileaf collimators. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Lei Xing,et al.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy in multiple organ sites. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  R. Pötter,et al.  Impact of a micromultileaf collimator on stereotactic radiotherapy of uveal melanoma. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  Hui Yan,et al.  Dosimetric characteristics of novalis Tx system with high definition multileaf collimator. , 2008, Medical physics.

[10]  Robert D Timmerman,et al.  Extracranial radiosurgery (stereotactic body radiation therapy) for oligometastases. , 2006, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[11]  P. Albert,et al.  Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[12]  R Mohan,et al.  Intensity-modulated stereotactic radiosurgery using dynamic micro-multileaf collimation. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Richard Pötter,et al.  Impact of IMRT and leaf width on stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver and lung lesions. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  J Duan,et al.  Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2002, Medical physics.

[15]  J. Perks,et al.  Comparison of Radiosurgery Planning Modalities for Acoustic Neuroma with Regard to Conformity and Mean Target Dose , 2005, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.

[16]  C. Cleeland,et al.  Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and its pattern of failure. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  T. Solberg,et al.  Dynamic arc radiosurgery field shaping: a comparison with static field conformal and noncoplanar circular arcs. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  J. Flickinger,et al.  The radiobiology of radiosurgery. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  H D Kubo,et al.  Impact of collimator leaf width on stereotactic radiosurgery and 3D conformal radiotherapy treatment plans. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  J. Rock,et al.  Partial volume tolerance of the spinal cord and complications of single‐dose radiosurgery , 2007, Cancer.

[21]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Stereotactic body radiotherapy for lesions of the spine and paraspinal regions. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Robert D Timmerman,et al.  Extracranial stereotactic radiation delivery. , 2005, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[23]  J. Perks,et al.  Stereotactic radiosurgery XVI: Isodosimetric comparison of photon stereotactic radiosurgery techniques (gamma knife vs. micromultileaf collimator linear accelerator) for acoustic neuroma--and potential clinical importance. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Dosimetric study using different leaf-width MLCs for treatment planning of dynamic conformal arcs and intensity-modulated radiosurgery. , 2005, Medical physics.

[25]  R. Timmerman,et al.  Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Comprehensive Review , 2007, American journal of clinical oncology.

[26]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[27]  J. Flickinger,et al.  Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial malignancies. , 1994, Oncology.