PurposeNormal brain tissue doses have been shown to be strongly apparatus dependent for multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery. In this study, we investigated whether inter-target dose interplay effects across contemporary radiosurgical treatment platforms are responsible for such an observation.MethodsFor the study, subsets ( and 12) of a total of 12 targets were planned at six institutions. Treatment platforms included the (1) Gamma Knife Perfexion (PFX), (2) CyberKnife, (3) Novalis linear accelerator equipped with a 3.0-mm multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and the (4) Varian Truebeam flattening-filter-free (FFF) linear accelerator also equipped with a 2.5 mm MLC. Identical dose–volume constraints for the targets and critical structures were applied for each apparatus. All treatment plans were developed at individual centers, and the results were centrally analyzed.ResultsWe found that dose–volume constraints were satisfied by each apparatus with some differences noted in certain structures such as the lens. The peripheral normal brain tissue doses were lowest for the PFX and highest for TrueBeam FFF and CyberKnife treatment plans. Comparing the volumes of normal brain receiving 12 Gy, TrueBeam FFF, Novalis, and CyberKnife were 180–290 % higher than PFX. The mean volume of normal brain-per target receiving 4-Gy increased by approximately 3.0 cc per target for TrueBeam, 2.7 cc per target for CyberKnife, 2.0 cc per target for Novalis, and 0.82 cc per target for PFX. The beam-on time was shortest with the TrueBeam FFF (e.g., 6–9 min at a machine output rate of 1,200 MU/min) and longest for the PFX (e.g., 50–150 mins at a machine output rate of 350 cGy/min).ConclusionThe volumes of normal brain receiving 4 and 12 Gy were higher, and increased more swiftly per target, for Linac-based SRS platforms than for PFX. Treatment times were shortest with TrueBeam FFF.

For non-deep brain metastases, 47.5 Gy in 5 fractions was tolerable. Volumetric radiosurgery was effective for long-term control of treated brain metastases.

POP resulted in favorable MU, treatment time and dosimetry but had poor conformality. 3D-CRT was more conformal but had higher MU and treatment time. RapidArc and cIMRT were generally no better dosimetrically than conformal techniques. RapidArc was dosimetrically very similar to cIMRT, but resulted in a major reduction in time and MU used to deliver the radiation.

No abstract