Tuning-Target-Guided Inverse Planning of Brain Tumors With Abutting Organs at Risk During Gamma Knife Stereotactic...

Purpose We proposed a planning strategy that utilized tuning targets to guide GammaKnife (GK) Inverse Planning (IP) to deliver higher dose to the tumor, while keeping acceptable dose to the abutting organ at risk (OAR). Methods Ten patients with a large portion of brain tumor abutting the OAR previously treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) were selected. For each patient, multiple tuning targets were created by cropping the target contour from three-dimensional (3D) expansions of the OAR. The number of the tuning targets depended on the complexity of the planning process. To demonstrate dose sparing effect, an IP plan was generated for each tuning target after one round of optimization without shot fine-tuning. In the dose enhancement study, a more aggressive target dose was prescribed to the tuning target with a larger margin and one to two shots were filled in the region with missing dose. The resulting plans were compared to the previously approved clinical plans. Results For all 10 patients, a dose sparing effect was observed, i.e. both target coverage and dose to the OARs decreased when the margins of 3D expansion increased. For one patient, a margin of 6 mm was needed to decrease the maximum dose to the optical chiasm and optical nerve by 44.3% and 28.4%, respectively. For the other nine patients, the mean dropping rate of V12Gyto brain stem were 28.2% and 59.5% for tuning targets of 1 and 2 mm margins, respectively. In the dose enhancement study, the tuning-target-guided plans were hotter than the approved treatment plans, while keeping similar dose to the OARs. The mean of the treatment and enhancement dose was 15.6 ± 2.2 Gy and 18.5 ± 3.2 Gy, respectively. The mean coverage of the target by prescription dose was slightly higher in the enhancement plans (96.9 ± 2.6% vs 96.3 ± 3.6%), whereas the mean coverage of the enhancement dose was 20.1% higher in the enhancement plans (89.6 ± 9.0% vs 74.6 ± 19.9%). Conclusions We demonstrated that an inverse planning strategy could facilitate target dose enhancement for challenging GK cases while keeping acceptable OAR dose.