Comparison between the HyperArc™ technique and the CyberKnife® technique for stereotactic treatment of brain metastases.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the planimetric capacities between HyperArc™-based stereotactic radiosurgery and robotic radiosurgery system-based planning using CyberKnife® M6 for single and multiple cranial metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 51 treatment plans for cranial metastases, including 30 patients with a single lesion and 21 patients with multiple lesions, treated with the CyberKnife® M6. These treatment plans were optimized using the HyperArc™ (HA) system with the TrueBeam. The comparison of the quality of the treatment plans between the two treatment techniques (CyberKnife and HyperArc) was performed using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Dosimetric parameters were compared for target volumes and organs at risk.

RESULTS

Coverage of the target volumes was equivalent between the two techniques, whereas median Paddick conformity index and median gradient index for all target volumes were 0.9 and 3.4, respectively for HyperArc plans, and 0.8 and 4.5 for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001). The median dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) for HyperArc and CyberKnife plans were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively. Total brain V18Gy and V12Gy-GTVs were 11cm and 20.2cm for HyperArc plans versus 18cm and 34.1cm for CyberKnife plans (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The HyperArc provided better brain sparing, with a significant reduction in V12Gy and V18Gy, associated with a lower gradient index, whereas the CyberKnife gave a higher median GTV dose. The HyperArc technique seems to be more appropriate for multiple cranial metastases and for large single metastatic lesions.