Analysis reveals strong correlations between dosimetric parameters and tumor volume in SRS VMAT, indicating potential for improved planning consistency.
Purpose Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is increasingly utilized. While high‐dose conformity guidelines relative to tumor volume exist, recommendations for intermediate and low‐dose regions remain undefined. This study explores tumor‐specific characteristics and new dosimetric parameters to develop regression models for standardizing intracranial SRS planning. Materials and Method We introduce two dosimetric quantities: R 6Gy , the 6 Gy cloud volume ratio to the PTV, and %D 1cm , the maximum dose at 1 cm from the PTV relative to the prescribed dose. These, alongside R 50% and the volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy (V 12Gy ), were analyzed retrospectively in 290 VMAT SRS plans from 151 patients treated between January 2021 and September 2023. The data were stratified into single‐ and three‐ fraction arms. Statistical tests, including Spearman's rank correlation, and Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) evaluated relationships between dosimetric parameters, number of metastases ( n ), and total PTV volume, PTV Total . Significant correlations were modeled using regression analysis. Results Strong correlations were found between PTV Total and all dosimetric metrics in the single‐fraction arm; weaker but significant correlations were noted in the three‐fraction arm. Power‐law regression best described R 50% and R 6Gy , while linear regressions best described %D 1cm and V 12Gy . Moderate monotonic correlations were observed between n and the dosimetric metrics. Conclusion This study proposes regression‐based models for predicting dose spill based on tumor burden, total PTV volume and number of targets. These models provide a framework for model‐based SRS planning, offering clinical physicists patient‐specific guidance to improve consistency, optimize plan quality, and support future standardization efforts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tavakoli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: