Optimal combination of collimator angles for dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy planning in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases

Fumiya Tsurumaki,Yujiro Nakajima,Kei Ito,Satoshi Kito,Riki Kikumura,Keiko Nemoto Murofushi,Atsunori Yorozu,Yukio Fujita
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2024.08.004
2024-09-20
Abstract:In planning the treatment of spinal metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), the optimal blocking of the spinal cord to match the leaf travel can be achieved with a first-arc collimator angle of approximately 90°. We aim to clarify the optimal second-arc collimator angles when the first-arc collimator angle is fixed to 90° in dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For this retrospective study, we considered 37 spinal segments with spinal metastases and created dual-arc VMAT plans. In the plans, 24 Gy in 2 fractions were prescribed, and the first-arc collimator angle was fixed to 90° while varying the second-arc collimator angle in increments of 15° from 0° to 90°. All the plans were normalized such that the planning organ-at-risk volume for the spinal cord D0.035 cc = 17 Gy and satisfied other dose constraints. D95% for the planning target volume (PTV), V100% for the overlap between the PTV and 10 mm expansion of the spinal cord, modified gradient index, monitor unit, and 3%/1 mm gamma passing rates were compared between different second-arc collimator angles using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bonferroni correction. PTV D95% and overlap V100% were the highest for a second-arc collimator angle of 45° and decreased as the angle approached either 0° or 90°. The maximum mean differences of PTV D95% and overlap V100% were -2.66% (90° vs 45°, p < 0.0024) and -5.49% (90° vs 45°, p < 0.0024), respectively. Moreover, the second-arc collimator angle of 45° was the least suitable in terms of the modified gradient index. The required monitor unit increased from the second-arc collimator angle of 15° to 45°, and the 3%/1 mm gamma passing rates reached over 95% for the evaluated second-arc collimator angles of 15°, 30°, and 45°. We found that in the dual-arc VMAT plan for spine SBRT, second-arc collimator angles other than 90° were suitable, and 45° was the optimal angle in terms of target coverage including the area around the spinal cord.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?