Purpose: In surface image guided radiosurgery, action limits are created to determine at what point intrafractional motion exhibited by the patient is large enough to warrant intervention. Action limit values remain constant across patients despite the fact that patient motion affects the target coverage of brain metastases differently depending on the planning technique and other treatment plan-specific factors. The purpose of this work was twofold. The first purpose was to characterize the sensitivity of single-met per iso and multimet per iso treatment plans to uncorrected patient motion. The second purpose was to describe a method to prospectively determine treatment plan-specific action limits considering this sensitivity.
Methods: In their surface image guided radiosurgery technique, patient positioning is achieved with a thermoplastic mask that does not cover the patient's face. The patient's exposed face is imaged by a stereoscopic photogrammetry system. It is then compared to a reference surface and monitored throughout treatment. Seventy-two brain metastases (representing 29 patients) were used for this study. Twenty-five mets were treated individually ("single-met per iso plans"), and 47 were treated in a plan simultaneously with at least one other met ("multimet per iso plans"). For each met, the proportion of the gross tumor volume that remained within the 100% prescription isodose line was estimated under the influence of combinations of translations and rotations (0.0-3.0 mm and 0.0°-3.0°, respectively). The target volume and the prescription dose-volume were considered concentric spheres that each encompassed a volume determined from the treatment plan. Plan-specific contour plots and DVHs were created to illustrate the sensitivity of a specific lesion to uncorrected patient motion.
Results: Both single-met per iso and multimet per iso plans exhibited compromised target coverage under translations and rotations, though multimet per iso plans were considerably more sensitive to these transformations (2.3% and 39.8%, respectively). Plan-specific contour plots and DVHs were used to illustrate how size, distance from isocenter, and planning technique affect a particular met's sensitivity to motion.
Conclusions: Stereotactic radiosurgery treatment plans that treat multiple brain metastases using a common isocenter are particularly susceptible to compromised target coverage as a result of uncorrected patient motion. The use of such a planning technique along with other treatment plan-specific factors should influence patient motion management. A graphical representation of the effect of translations and rotations on any particular plan can be generated to inform clinicians of the appropriate action limit when monitoring intrafractional motion.