Stereotactic radiosurgery for benign brain tumors: Results of multicenter benchmark planning studies

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is strongly indicated for treatment of surgically inaccessible benign brain tumors. Various treatment platforms are available, but few comparisons have included multiple centers. As part of a national commissioning program, benchmark planning cases were completed by all clinical centers in the region.

Methods and materials: Four benign cases were provided, with images and structures predelineated, including intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma (VS), larger VS, skull base meningioma, and secreting pituitary adenoma. Centers were asked to follow their local practice, and plans were reviewed centrally using metrics for target coverage, selectivity, gradient falloff, and normal tissue sparing.

Results: Sixty-eight plans were submitted using 18 different treatment platforms. Fourteen plans were subsequently revised following feedback, and review of 5 plans led to a restriction of service on 2 platforms (2 centers). Prescription doses were consistent for VS and meningioma submissions, but a wide range of doses were used for the pituitary case. All centers prioritized coverage, with the prescription isodose covering ≥95% of 78/82 target volumes. Lower values may be expected next to air cavities when using advanced algorithms, and in general may be acceptable for some benign lesions. Selectivity was much more variable, and in some cases this was combined with high gradient index and/or >1 mm margin, resulting in large volumes of normal tissue being irradiated. Normal tissue doses were more variable across linear accelerator (LINAC)-based plans than with Gamma Knife or CyberKnife, and dose spillage seemed independent of prescription isodose (inhomogeneity). This may reflect the variety of LINAC-based approaches represented or the necessary tradeoff between different objectives.

Conclusions: These benchmarking exercises have highlighted areas of different clinical practice and priorities and potential for improvement. The subsequent sharing of plan data and margin philosophies between the neurosurgery and oncology communities allowed for meaningful comparison between centers and their peers.