Treatment planning strategy for whole-brain radiotherapy with hippocampal sparing and simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases using intensity-modulated arc therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy, plan quality and efficiency of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) for hippocampal sparing whole-brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in patients with multiple brain metastases (m-BM).


METHODS
A total of 5 patients with m-BM were retrospectively replanned for HS-WBRT with SIB using IMAT treatment planning. The hippocampus was contoured on diagnostic T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which had been fused with the planning CT image set. The hippocampal avoidance zone (HAZ) was generated using a 5-mm uniform margin around the paired hippocampi. The m-BM planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured on T1/T2-weighted MRI registered with the 3D planning computed tomography (CT). The whole-brain planning target volume (WB-PTV) was defined as the whole-brain tissue volume minus HAZ and m-BM PTVs. Highly conformal IMAT plans were generated in the Eclipse treatment planning system for Novalis-TX linear accelerator consisting of high-definition multileaf collimators (HD-MLCs: 2.5-mm leaf width at isocenter) and 6-MV beam. Prescription dose was 30Gy for WB-PTV and 45Gy for each m-BM in 10 fractions. Three full coplanar arcs with orbit avoidance sectors were used. Treatment plans were evaluated using homogeneity (HI) and conformity indices (CI) for target coverage and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Dose delivery efficiency and accuracy of each IMAT plan was assessed via quality assurance (QA) with a MapCHECK device. Actual beam-on time was recorded and a gamma index was used to compare dose agreement between the planned and measured doses.


RESULTS
All 5 HS-WBRT with SIB plans met WB-PTV D2%, D98%, and V30GyNRG-CC001 requirements. The plans demonstrated highly conformal and homogenous coverage of the WB-PTV with mean HI and CI values of 0.33 ± 0.04 (range: 0.27 to 0.36), and 0.96 ± 0.01 (range: 0.95 to 0.97), respectively. All 5 hippocampal sparing patients met protocol guidelines with maximum dose and dose to 100% of hippocampus (D100%) less than 16 and 9Gy, respectively. The dose to the optic apparatus was kept below protocol guidelines for all 5 patients. Highly conformal and homogenous radiosurgical dose distributions were achieved for all 5 patients with a total of 33 brain metastases. The m-BM PTVs had a mean HI = 0.09 ± 0.02 (range: 0.07 to 0.19) and a mean CI = 1.02 ± 0.06 (range: 0.93 to 1.2). The total number of monitor units (MU) was, on average, 1677 ± 166. The average beam-on time was 4.1 ± 0.4 minute . The IMAT plans demonstrated accurate dose delivery of 95.2 ± 0.6%, on average, for clinical gamma passing rate with 2%/2-mm criteria and 98.5 ± 0.9%, on average, with 3%/3-mm criteria.


CONCLUSIONS
All hippocampal sparing plans were considered clinically acceptable per NRG-CC001 dosimetric compliance criteria. IMAT planning provided highly conformal and homogenous dose distributions for the WB-PTV and m-BM PTVs with lower doses to OAR such as the hippocampus. These results suggest that HS-WBRT with SIB is a clinically feasible, fast, and effective treatment option for patients with a relatively large numbers of m-BM lesions.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS. Electronic address: dpokhrel@kumc.edu.
Damodar
D
Pokhrel
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Sumit
S
Sood
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Christopher
C
McClinton
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Xinglei
X
Shen
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Christopher
C
Lominska
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Habeeb
H
Saleh
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Rajeev
R
Badkul
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Hongyu
H
Jiang
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Melissa
M
Mitchell
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS.
Fen
F
Wang
D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy* / Q000556:secondary*; D016371:Cranial Irradiation / Q000379:methods*; D006624:Hippocampus / Q000528:radiation effects*; D006801:Humans; D059351:Organ Sparing Treatments; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies
Hippocampal sparing; IMAT; SIB; Whole-brain RT