Hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy under coplanar or noncoplanar VMAT

Pin-Yi Chiang; Chao-Hsiung Hung; Chih-Chia Chang; Cheng-Yen Lee; Yu-Wen Wang; Yuk-Wah Tsang

doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2023.02.002

Hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy under coplanar or noncoplanar VMAT

Med Dosim. 2023;48(3):134-139. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2023.02.002. Epub 2023 Apr 2.

Authors

Pin-Yi Chiang¹, Chao-Hsiung Hung², Chih-Chia Chang³, Cheng-Yen Lee¹, Yu-Wen Wang¹, Yuk-Wah Tsang⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
² Department of Radiation Oncology, Chiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi County, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
³ Department of Radiation Oncology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan (R.O.C.); Department of Medical Laboratory Science and Biotechnology, Asia University, Taichung City, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Electronic address: 07229@cych.org.tw.
⁴ Department of Radiation Oncology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan (R.O.C.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Electronic address: davidywtsang@gmail.com.

PMID: 37012163
DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2023.02.002

Abstract

Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) can alleviate symptoms in patients with brain metastases. However, WBRT may damage the hippocampus. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve a suitable coverage of the target region and a more conforming dose distribution whereas decreasing the dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). Herein, we aimed to compare the differences between treatment plans utilizing coplanar VMAT and noncoplanar VMAT in hippocampal-sparing WBRT (HS-WBRT). Ten patients were included in this study. For each patient, the Eclipse A10 treatment planning system was used to generate 1 coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT) and 2 noncoplanar VMAT treatment plans with various beam angles (noncoplanar VMAT A [NC-A] and noncoplanar VMAT B [NC-B]) for HS-WBRT. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy in 12 fractions. Treatment plans were established based on the OAR dose constraints of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933 (RTOG 0933). Parameters such as the global maximum dose, dose conformity, dose homogeneity of plans, and OAR doses were evaluated. The maximum biologically equivalent doses in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) of OARs in C-VMAT were 9.17 ± 0.61, 42.79 ± 2.00, and 42.84 ± 3.52 Gy in the hippocampus, brain stem, and optic chiasm, respectively, which were the lowest among the 3 treatment plans. There was no significant difference in dose conformity among the 3 treatment plans. However, NC-A had a slightly better conformity than C-VMAT and NC-B. NC-A had the best homogeneity, and NC-B had the worst homogeneity (p = 0.042). NC-A and NC-B had the lowest and highest global dose maximum, respectively. Therefore, NC-A, which had an intermediate performance in terms of OAR doses, had the best quality parameters. We used the quality score table based on the p-value to evaluate the significant difference between each treatment technique from the multiparameter results. In terms of treatment plan parameters, only NC-A received a score of 2; for OAR doses, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a score of 6, 3, and 5, respectively. For the overall evaluation, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a total score of 6, 5, and 5, respectively. Rather than noncoplanar VMAT, 3 full-arc C-VMATs should be utilized in HS-WBRT. C-VMAT can simultaneously maintain treatment plan quality and decrease patient alignment time and total treatment time.

Keywords: Coplanar; Hippocampal-sparing; Hippocampus; Noncoplanar; VMAT; WBRT.