Vienna, Austria

ESTRO 2023

Session Item

May 13
16:45 - 17:45
Business Suite 1-2
Technical improvements in radiotherapy practice
Rianne de Jong, The Netherlands
Poster Discussion
Dosimetric impact of setup errors in single-isocenter VMAT radiosurgery for brain metastases
Denis Panizza, Italy


Dosimetric impact of setup errors in single-isocenter VMAT radiosurgery for brain metastases

Denis Panizza1, Valeria Faccenda1, Sara Trivellato1, Paolo Caricato1, Valerio Pisoni2, Raffaella Lucchini3, Elena De Ponti1, Stefano Arcangeli3

1ASST Monza, Medical Physics Department, Monza, Italy; 2ASST Monza, Radiation Oncology Department, Monza, Italy; 3University of Milan Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milan, Italy

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

In stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) of brain metastases (BM) using single-isocenter VMAT, intra-fraction positioning errors may affect target coverage. This study aims to investigate geometric and dosimetric accuracy in single and multiple BM treatments.

Material and Methods

Seventy patients with single (n=38) and multiple (n=32) BM treated with 15-21 Gy in 1 (n=59) or 27 Gy in 3 (n=11) fractions using coplanar FFF-VMAT technique were analyzed. PTV was defined by a 2 mm isotropic GTV expansion. Pre-treatment setup errors were evaluated with CBCT and corrected with a robotic six degrees-of-freedom couch. For each fraction, intra-fractional errors were measured by post-treatment CBCT and applied to the planning CT. Plans involving translations and rotations (Fx-plan) were recalculated with Monaco Monte Carlo TPS. Original and Fx-plans were compared in terms of target and brain dose parameters, performing the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (alpha=0.05). The relationships of the BM volume, maximum dimension, distance-to-isocenter (for multiple BM cases only) and barycenter shift with the difference in target coverage between the two plans were investigated.


The median post-treatment 3D error and maximum rotational error over all 129 BM were 0.5 mm [0.1–2.7] and 0.3° [0.0–1.3], respectively. The resulting median BM barycenter shift was 0.5 mm [0.1–2.7]. The percentage of fractions in which at least one BM barycenter shifted by more than 2 mm from the planned position was 4% and 1% for single and multiple BM cases, respectively. The median single GTV volume was 0.27 cc [0.01–10.48], while the PTV had a median volume of 1.05 cc [0.12–17.05]. The median BM maximum dimension was 10.7 mm [2.9–34.1] and for multiple BM the median distance-to-isocenter was 5.15 cm [0.89–7.52]. For single BM patients, the GTV D95% was never reduced by > 5%, while PTV D95% reductions > 1% occurred in only 11 (29%) PTV. For multiple BM patients, the target statistics were slightly worse, with dose deficits larger than 5% and 1% occurring respectively in 2 BM and 34 (37%) PTV. Anyway, the majority of single and multiple BM had a loss of coverage for both GTV and PTV below 1% in Fx-plans. Larger than 5% brain V12Gy (SRS) and V20Gy (fSRS) increases were observed for only one single BM patient. None of the two dosimetric comparisons resulted statistically significant (p>0.05). The differences in target coverage showed a moderate-to-strong correlation only with the BM barycenter shift in both cases (R²=0.70-0.73 for single and R²=0.44-0.50 for multiple BM).


Due to the optimal patient setup, as well as the full six degrees-of-freedom corrections, the safety PTV margin, and the fast beam delivery, the dosimetric effects of residual setup and patient motion errors for both single and multiple BM cases were negligible. These findings warrant a potential reduction in the PTV margin with this treatment technique.