article · Medical dosimetry
C-arm linacs have been used widely to treat multiple cranial metastases using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). A new generation of O-ring linacs offer several workflow advantages when compared to C-arm platforms. However, O-ring linacs are not able to employ couch rotations for noncoplanar beams used in SRS treatments. This study was conducted in order to simulate further possible developments of O-ring treatment units by assessing their geometrical efficiency. In this work we compare the plan quality for C-arm versus an O-ring platform including metrics that are relevant to SRS for multiple metastases. The comparison is conducted by incorporating tilted arcs on the O-ring platform therefore introducing noncoplanarity. Total 40 patients previously treated for SRS with 20 Gy single fraction were replanned for C-arm with a standard noncoplanar 5-arc arrangement and O-ring with both coplanar and noncoplanar beams. For the O-ring plans, we considered a default 3-arc coplanar arrangement, as well as 3- and 5-arc arrangements with arcs tipped up to 10 degrees from the axial plane. Target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, monitor unit (MU) efficiency, conformity and gradient indices were assessed for all plans. For most metrics the O-ring geometries, even the coplanar arrangement, produced statistically comparable results to the C-arm. Small but significant differences were found for the 3 arc O-ring for PTV: D90%, D2% and MU/Gy and for the 5 arc O-ring at D2% when both were compared to the C-arm. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) for normal brain showed a cross-over between the C-arm and coplanar O-ring geometry at a low dose (2.3 ± 1.8 Gy), with O-ring associated with higher volumes above this cross-over dose. However, no statistical difference was seen in the brainstem, optic pathway and volumes of normal brain receiving 12 Gy or 20 Gy. This study has found that O-ring geometry linacs can produce SRS plans of comparable quality to those from a C-arm for multiple cranial metastases.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.008
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.