Evaluation of a dedicated software for semi-automated VMAT planning of spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT). (May 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dupuis, Pauline; François, Madani; Baudier, Thomas; Sunyach, Marie-Pierre; Brahmi, Tristan; Ayadi, Myriam; Biston, Marie-Claude
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 109(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-05
• Subjects: Spine -- SRS -- SBRT -- SABR -- Treatment planning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102578
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Highlights: Expert TPS gave similar plan quality to Cyberknife and clinical TPS for spine SBRT. Expert TPS resulted in higher mean doses to CTV and PTV than other TPS. Expert TPS generally showed better spinal cord sparing and better GI than other TPS. Abstract: Purpose: To determine whether SBRT of spinal metastasis using a dedicated treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered with a gantry-based LINAC could provide plans of similar quality to the Cyberknife technology. Additional comparison was also done with other commercial TPS used for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Materials and Methods: Thirty Spine SBRT patients, previously treated in our institution with CyberKnife (Accuray, Sunnyvale) using Multiplan TPS, were replanned in VMAT with an dedicated TPS (Elements Spine SRS, Brainlab, Munich) and our clinical TPS (Monaco, Elekta LTD, Stockholm), using exactly the same arc geometry. The comparison was done by assessing differences in dose delivered to PTV, CTV and spinal cord, calculating modulation complexity scores (MCS) and performing quality control (QA) of the plans. Results: Regardless of the vertebra level, in general, no statistical difference was found in PTV coverage between all TPS. Conversely, PTV and CTV D50% were found significantly higher for the dedicated TPS compared to others. In addition, the dedicated TPS also resulted in better gradient index (GI) than clinical VMAT TPS, whatever the vertebral level, and better GI than Cyberknife TPS for the thoracic level only. The D2% to the spinal cord was generally significantly lower with the dedicated TPS compared with others. No significant difference was found in the MCS between both VMAT TPS. All QA were clinically acceptable. Conclusion: The Elements Spine SRS TPS offers very effective and user-friendly semi-automated planning tools and is secure and promising for gantry-based LINAC spinal SBRT.