Approaches for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS)/Stereotactic Radiotherapy (SRT) in brain metastases using different radiotherapy modalities (Feasibility study)

Zyad A Tawfik; Mohamed El-Azab Farid; Khaled M El Shahat; Ahmed A Hussein; Mostafa Al Etreby

doi:10.3233/XST-230275

Approaches for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS)/Stereotactic Radiotherapy (SRT) in brain metastases using different radiotherapy modalities (Feasibility study)

J Xray Sci Technol. 2024 Jan 22. doi: 10.3233/XST-230275. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Zyad A Tawfik^{1

2}, Mohamed El-Azab Farid², Khaled M El Shahat³, Ahmed A Hussein², Mostafa Al Etreby^{4

5}

Affiliations

¹ Radiological Sciences Department, Inaya Medical Colleges, Riyadh, KSA.
² Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
³ Radiation Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
⁴ Oncology Department, Dr. Soliman Fakeeh Hospital | DSFH, Jeddah, KSA.
⁵ Oncology Department, Cairo University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.

PMID: 38277334
DOI: 10.3233/XST-230275

Abstract

Background: SRS and SRT are precise treatments for brain metastases, delivering high doses while minimizing doses to nearby organs. Modern linear accelerators enable the precise delivery of SRS/SRT using different modalities like three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and Rapid Arc (RA).

Objective: This study aims to compare dosimetric differences and evaluate the effectiveness of 3DCRT, IMRT, and Rapid Arc techniques in SRS/SRT for brain metastases.

Methods: 10 patients with brain metastases, 3 patients assigned for SRT, and 7 patients for SRS. For each patient, 3 treatment plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system using different treatment modalities.

Results: No statistically significant differences were observed among the three techniques in the homogeneity index (HI), maximum D2%, and minimum D98% doses for the target, with a p > 0.05. The RA demonstrated a better conformity index of 1.14±0.25 than both IMRT 1.21±0.26 and 3DCRT 1.37±0.31. 3DCRT and IMRT had lower Gradient Index values compared to RA, suggesting that they achieved a better dose gradient than RA. The mean treatment time decreased by 26.2% and 10.3% for 3DCRT and RA, respectively, compared to IMRT. In organs at risk, 3DCRT had lower maximum doses than IMRT and RA, but some differences were not statistically significant. However, in the brain stem and brain tissues, RA exhibited lower maximum doses compared to IMRT and 3DCRT. Additionally, RA and IMRT had lower V15Gy, V12Gy, and V9Gy values compared to 3DCRT.

Conclusion: While 3D-CRT delivered lower doses to organs at risk, RA and IMRT provided better conformity and target coverage. RA effectively controlled the maximum dose and irradiated volume of normal brain tissue. Overall, these findings indicate that 3DCRT, RA, and IMRT are suitable for treating brain metastases in SRS/SRT due to their improved dose conformity and target coverage while minimizing dose to healthy tissues.

Keywords: 3DCRT; IMRT; Rapid Arc; SRS; SRT; brain metastases; linac-based SRS.