Department of Clinical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Department of Health Technology & Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Feb;23(2):e13484. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13484. Epub 2021 Dec 20.
Treatment of multiple brain metastases by linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) can employ either a multiple-isocenter (MI) or single-isocenter (SI) approach. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the dosimetric results of MI and SI approaches and compare the impacts of intra-fractional setup discrepancies on the robustness of respective approaches using isocenter shifts, whether the same magnitude of translational and rotational effects could lead to a significant difference between the two approaches.
Twenty-two patients with multiple brain metastases treated by linac-based SRT were recruited. Treatment plans were computed with both the MI and SI approaches. For the MI approach, the isocenter was located at the geometric center of each planning target volumes (PTVs), whereas the isocenter of the SI approach was located midway between the PTV centroids. To simulate the intra-fractional errors, isocenter displacements including translational and rotational shifts were hypothetically applied. Apart from the dosimetric outcomes of the two approaches, the impact of the isocenter shifts on PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded in terms of the differences (δ) in dose parameters relative to the reference plan and was then compared between the MI and SI approaches.
Both MI and SI plans met the plan acceptance criteria. The mean Paddick conformity index (Paddick CI) and D of most OARs between MI and SI plans did not show a significant difference, except that higher doses to the left optic nerve and optic chiasm were found in SI plans (p = 0.03). After the application of the isocenter shifts, δCI increased with an increase in the magnitude of the isocenter shift. When comparing between MI and SI plans, the δCIs were similar (p > 0.05) for all extents of translational shifts, but δCIs were significantly higher in SI plans after application of all rotations particularly ±1.5° and ±2.0° shifts. Despite the result that the majority of δD of OARs were higher in the SI plans, only the differences in the left optic nerve and chiasm showed generally consistent significance after both translational ≥±1 mm and rotational shifts of ≥±1 .
Both MI and SI approaches could produce clinically acceptable plans. However, isocenter shifts brought dosimetric impacts to both MI and SI approaches and the effects increased with the increase of the shift magnitude. Although similar impacts were shown in plans of both approaches after translational isocenter shift, SI plans were relatively more vulnerable than MI plans to rotational shifts.
使用直线加速器立体定向放射治疗(SRT)治疗多发脑转移瘤,可以采用多靶点(MI)或单靶点(SI)方法。本研究的目的是评估 MI 和 SI 方法的剂量学结果,并比较在使用等中心移位、各向同性中心偏移的情况下,各向同性中心移位对各自方法的稳健性的影响,以及是否相同大小的平移和旋转效应可能导致两种方法之间的显著差异。
共纳入 22 例接受基于直线加速器 SRT 治疗的多发脑转移瘤患者。分别采用 MI 和 SI 方法计算治疗计划。对于 MI 方法,等中心位于每个计划靶区(PTV)的几何中心,而 SI 方法的等中心位于 PTV 质心之间的中点。为了模拟分次内误差,假设等中心位移包括平移和旋转位移。除了两种方法的剂量学结果外,还记录了等中心位移对 PTV 和危及器官(OARs)的影响,即剂量参数相对于参考计划的差异(δ),然后在 MI 和 SI 方法之间进行比较。
MI 和 SI 计划均符合计划接受标准。MI 和 SI 计划之间大多数 OARs 的平均 Paddick 适形指数(Paddick CI)和 D 无显著差异,除 SI 计划中左视神经和视交叉的高剂量(p=0.03)外。应用等中心位移后,随着等中心位移幅度的增加,δCI 增加。比较 MI 和 SI 计划时,所有平移位移的 δCIs 相似(p>0.05),但应用所有旋转位移特别是±1.5°和±2.0°后,SI 计划的 δCIs 显著更高。尽管 OARs 的大多数 δD 在 SI 计划中更高,但仅在左右视神经和视交叉的差异在平移≥±1mm 和旋转≥±1°的情况下具有普遍一致性。
MI 和 SI 方法均可产生临床可接受的计划。然而,等中心位移对 MI 和 SI 方法都带来了剂量学影响,并且随着位移幅度的增加,影响也随之增加。虽然在各向同性中心平移位移后,两种方法的计划都显示出相似的影响,但与 MI 计划相比,SI 计划对旋转位移更为敏感。