Lara Caglayan, Davide Scafa, Patrick Eich, Christina Leitzen, Fabian Kugel, Stephan Garbe, Gustavo Renato Sarria, Christos Moustakis, Dimos Baltas, Julian Philipp Layer, Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere, Andrea Renate Glasmacher, Shari Wiegreffe, Anca L Grosu, Eleni Gkika, Youness Nour
{"title":"基于linac的脑病变SRS中DCA和VMAT的决策:基于肿瘤大小和几何形状的剂量学分析和Qasym的介绍","authors":"Lara Caglayan, Davide Scafa, Patrick Eich, Christina Leitzen, Fabian Kugel, Stephan Garbe, Gustavo Renato Sarria, Christos Moustakis, Dimos Baltas, Julian Philipp Layer, Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere, Andrea Renate Glasmacher, Shari Wiegreffe, Anca L Grosu, Eleni Gkika, Youness Nour","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Linac-based SRS provides a highly precise noninvasive treatment option for intracranial lesions. DCA and VMAT are commonly used Linac-based techniques. There are no standardized guidelines for technique selection, particularly considering the geometric properties of the lesions. We thus sought to compare DCA and VMAT to define a workflow for clinical decision-making. This study introduces Q<sub>asym</sub>, a novel parameter quantifying lesion asymmetry, and compares the dosimetric performance of DCA and VMAT.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and methods</h3>\n \n <p>Between 2018 and 2021, a total of 89 brain metastases from 24 patients with lesion volumes up to 4.3 cm<sup>3</sup> were included. VMAT and DCA plans were created for each lesion with identical field parameters, resulting in a total of 178 evaluable plans. The parameters included the CI, DSI, and MUs. Various approaches for quantifying asymmetry were explored and their impact on CI and DSI was investigated. Additionally, we introduced the novel Q<sub>asym</sub> index, designed to quantify lesion asymmetry.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>VMAT resulted in lower CI values, especially for volumes exceeding 2 cm<sup>3</sup>. With a prescription dose of 20 Gy, DSI<sub>90%</sub> values were comparable between VMAT and DCA for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup>, while VMAT achieved lower values for larger volumes. VMAT showed higher DSI<sub>50%</sub> and DSI<sub>25%</sub> values for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup>, which reversed for larger volumes. V<sub>2Gy</sub> values were similar for both techniques for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup> but were lower for VMAT in larger volumes. Q<sub>asym</sub> significantly correlated with CI (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Analysis of ΔCI% and ΔDSI% revealed that VMAT outperformed DCA for lesions > 2 cm<sup>3</sup> and smaller volumes with a Q<sub>asym</sub> > 1.2. DCA required significantly fewer MUs (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study provides detailed dosimetric information on two commonly applied planning techniques for Linac-based SRS treatment for brain metastases. These findings might support decision making for optimal technique selection upon volumetric features. Q<sub>asym</sub> provides a practical tool for these purposes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70282","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision-making between DCA and VMAT in Linac-based SRS for brain lesions: A dosimetric analysis based on tumor size and geometry and introduction of Qasym\",\"authors\":\"Lara Caglayan, Davide Scafa, Patrick Eich, Christina Leitzen, Fabian Kugel, Stephan Garbe, Gustavo Renato Sarria, Christos Moustakis, Dimos Baltas, Julian Philipp Layer, Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere, Andrea Renate Glasmacher, Shari Wiegreffe, Anca L Grosu, Eleni Gkika, Youness Nour\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Linac-based SRS provides a highly precise noninvasive treatment option for intracranial lesions. DCA and VMAT are commonly used Linac-based techniques. There are no standardized guidelines for technique selection, particularly considering the geometric properties of the lesions. We thus sought to compare DCA and VMAT to define a workflow for clinical decision-making. This study introduces Q<sub>asym</sub>, a novel parameter quantifying lesion asymmetry, and compares the dosimetric performance of DCA and VMAT.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Between 2018 and 2021, a total of 89 brain metastases from 24 patients with lesion volumes up to 4.3 cm<sup>3</sup> were included. VMAT and DCA plans were created for each lesion with identical field parameters, resulting in a total of 178 evaluable plans. The parameters included the CI, DSI, and MUs. Various approaches for quantifying asymmetry were explored and their impact on CI and DSI was investigated. Additionally, we introduced the novel Q<sub>asym</sub> index, designed to quantify lesion asymmetry.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>VMAT resulted in lower CI values, especially for volumes exceeding 2 cm<sup>3</sup>. With a prescription dose of 20 Gy, DSI<sub>90%</sub> values were comparable between VMAT and DCA for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup>, while VMAT achieved lower values for larger volumes. VMAT showed higher DSI<sub>50%</sub> and DSI<sub>25%</sub> values for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup>, which reversed for larger volumes. V<sub>2Gy</sub> values were similar for both techniques for < 2 cm<sup>3</sup> but were lower for VMAT in larger volumes. Q<sub>asym</sub> significantly correlated with CI (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Analysis of ΔCI% and ΔDSI% revealed that VMAT outperformed DCA for lesions > 2 cm<sup>3</sup> and smaller volumes with a Q<sub>asym</sub> > 1.2. DCA required significantly fewer MUs (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study provides detailed dosimetric information on two commonly applied planning techniques for Linac-based SRS treatment for brain metastases. These findings might support decision making for optimal technique selection upon volumetric features. Q<sub>asym</sub> provides a practical tool for these purposes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70282\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70282\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Decision-making between DCA and VMAT in Linac-based SRS for brain lesions: A dosimetric analysis based on tumor size and geometry and introduction of Qasym
Introduction
Linac-based SRS provides a highly precise noninvasive treatment option for intracranial lesions. DCA and VMAT are commonly used Linac-based techniques. There are no standardized guidelines for technique selection, particularly considering the geometric properties of the lesions. We thus sought to compare DCA and VMAT to define a workflow for clinical decision-making. This study introduces Qasym, a novel parameter quantifying lesion asymmetry, and compares the dosimetric performance of DCA and VMAT.
Materials and methods
Between 2018 and 2021, a total of 89 brain metastases from 24 patients with lesion volumes up to 4.3 cm3 were included. VMAT and DCA plans were created for each lesion with identical field parameters, resulting in a total of 178 evaluable plans. The parameters included the CI, DSI, and MUs. Various approaches for quantifying asymmetry were explored and their impact on CI and DSI was investigated. Additionally, we introduced the novel Qasym index, designed to quantify lesion asymmetry.
Results
VMAT resulted in lower CI values, especially for volumes exceeding 2 cm3. With a prescription dose of 20 Gy, DSI90% values were comparable between VMAT and DCA for < 2 cm3, while VMAT achieved lower values for larger volumes. VMAT showed higher DSI50% and DSI25% values for < 2 cm3, which reversed for larger volumes. V2Gy values were similar for both techniques for < 2 cm3 but were lower for VMAT in larger volumes. Qasym significantly correlated with CI (p < 0.01). Analysis of ΔCI% and ΔDSI% revealed that VMAT outperformed DCA for lesions > 2 cm3 and smaller volumes with a Qasym > 1.2. DCA required significantly fewer MUs (p < 0.01).
Conclusion
This study provides detailed dosimetric information on two commonly applied planning techniques for Linac-based SRS treatment for brain metastases. These findings might support decision making for optimal technique selection upon volumetric features. Qasym provides a practical tool for these purposes.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic