IJMPCERO  Vol.8 No.3 , August 2019
Arteriovenous Malformation (AVM) Treated with Robotic Radiosurgery: Impact of Beam Reduction in 12 Gy Normal Brain Volume and It’s Clinical Implication
Purpose: Dosimetric study to evaluate impact of “beam” reduction in AVM radiosurgery on normal brain dose parameters and it’s clinical implications. Materials and Methods: Five small volume AVMs (nidus volume 0.31 - 1.94 cc) planned for single fraction SRS with robotic radiosurgery system. Planning scans done with CT scan brain, CT & MR angiography, then nidus volume and organ at risk (OARs) were contoured. Planning was done with multiplan planning system. Plan evaluated as per Flickenger model parameters of 12 Gy nomal brain vol & marginal dose. 7.5 mm and 10 mm cons used, optimization done with seqential algorithm. 20 Gy was prescribed to isodose with appropriate nidus coverage (>98%). Total beams of five plans were 85 - 250, monitor unit 17,259 - 24,602 MU. 12 Gy normal brain volume is 0.9 - 7.6 cc. Then beam reduction is done by reducing beams with minimum MU in steps of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 MU and after beam reduction, re-optimization done. Prescription isodose was changed to keep the nidus coverage > 98%. Impacts of beam reduction on 12 Gy normal brain vol and conformity/homogeniety index were analyzed. Results: Optimal plans of five patients with 20 Gy prescribed to 88% - 90% isodose, nidus coverage more than 98%. In dosimetric parameters, mean CI was 1.36 - 1.51, nCI 1.41 - 1.51, HI 1.1 - 1.4 and mean 12 Gy normal brain volume 0.17, 1.44, 5.3, 5.5 and 7.6cc respectively. After beam reduction of less than 50 MU contribution (in case#1), prescibing at suitable isodose (85%) beam reduces to 79 and 12 Gy volume marginally increases to 26.4 cc. Beam reduction of less than 100 MU reduces to 53 - 92 beamlets. Reduction of beams with less than 150 MU contribution did not significantly change the 12Gy normal brain volume. However, reduction of beamlets with more than 200 MU, 250 MU, 300 MU, 450 MU and 550 MU significantly affects the 12 Gy normal brain volume. Prescription-isodose modified from 83% to 50% to have >98% coverage. CI and HI increased from 1.36 - 1.51 to 2.51 - 2.63 and 1.1 - 1.4 to 1.52 - 1.54 respectively. There was exponential increase in 12 Gy volume with reduction of beams with higher proportion in larger nidus. Conclusions: In robotic radiosurgery system, beam reduction even after re-optimization impairs the conformity index and increase 12 Gy normal brain volume, hence long-term toxicity. Optimal beam numbers are required for optimal plan generation.
Cite this paper: Dutta, D. , Krishnamoorthy, S. , Krishnan, G. and Sudahar, H. (2019) Arteriovenous Malformation (AVM) Treated with Robotic Radiosurgery: Impact of Beam Reduction in 12 Gy Normal Brain Volume and It’s Clinical Implication. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 8, 131-140. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2019.83012.

[1]   Touboul, E., Al Halabi, A. and Buffat, L. (1998) Single-Fraction Stereotactic Radiotherapy: A Dose-Response Analysis of Arteriovenous Malformation Obliteration. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 41, 855-861.

[2]   Zabel, A., Milker-Zabel, S., Huber, P., et al. (2005) Treatment Outcome after LINAC-Based Radiosurgery in Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations: Retrospective Analysis of Factors Affecting Obliteration. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 77, 105-110.

[3]   Pollock, B., Gorman, D. and Coffey, R. (2003) Patient Outcomes after Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgical Management: Results Based on a 5 to 14-Year Follow-Up Study. Journal of Neurosurgery, 52, 1291-1297.

[4]   Flickinger, J., Kondziolka, D., Maitza, A. and Lunsford, L. (2002) An Analysis of the Dose-Response for Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgery and Other Factors Affecting Obliteration. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 63, 347-354.

[5]   Flickinger, J.C., Kondziolka, D., Lunsford, L.D., Kassam, A., Phuong, L.K., Liscak, R. and Pollock, B. (2000) Development of a Model to Predict Permanent Symptomatic Postradiosurgery Injury for Arteriovenous Malformation Patients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 46, 1143-1148.

[6]   Flickinger, J., Kondziolka, D., Maitz, A. and Lunsford, L. (1998) Analysis of Neurological Sequelae from Radiosurgery of Arteriovenous Malformations: How Location Affects Outcome. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 40, 273-278.

[7]   Jalali, R., Dutta, D., Srinivas, C., Munshi, A., Limaye, U., Goel, A., Deshpande, D. and Sarin, R. (2009) Micromultileaf Collimator-Based Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Selected Arteriovenous Malformations: Technique and Preliminary Experience. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, 5, 186-191.

[8]   Colombo, F., Cavedon, C., Casentini, L., Francescon, P., Causin, F. and Pinna, V. (2009) Early Results of CyberKnife Radiosurgery for Arteriovenous Malformations. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111, 807-819.

[9]   Wowra, B., Muacevic, A., Tonn, J.C., Schoenberg, S.O., Reiser, M. and Herrmann, K.A. (2009) Obliteration Dynamics in Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations Aftercyberknife Radiosurgery: Quantification with Sequential Nidus Volumetry and 3-Tesla 3-Dimensional Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Neurosurgery, 64, A102-A109.

[10]   Yu, C., Jozsef, G., Apuzzo, M.L. and Petrovich, Z. (2003) Dosimetric Comparison of CyberKnife with Other Radiosurgical Modalities for an Ellipsoidal Target. Neurosurgery, 53, 1155-1162.

[11]   Gevaert, T., Levivier, M., Lacornerie, T., Verellen, D., Engels, B., Reynaert, N., Tournel, K., Duchateau, M., Reynders, T., Depuydt, T., Collen, C., Lartigau, E. and De Ridder, M. (2013) Dosimetric Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Arteriovenous Malformations and Acoustic Neuromas. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 106, 192-197.

[12]   Lomax, N.J. and Scheib, S.G. (2003) Quantifying the Degree of Conformity in Radiosurgery Treatment Planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 55, 1409-1419.

[13]   Andrews, D., Bednarz, G., Evans, J. and Downes, B. (2006) A Review of 3 Current Radiosurgery Systems. Surgical Neurology, 66, 559-564.

[14]   Blamek, S., Grzadziel, A., Miszczyk, L., et al. (2013) Robotic Radiosurgery versus Micro-Multileaf Collimator: A Dosimetric Comparison for Large or Critically Located Arteriovenous Malformations. Radiation Oncology, 8, 205.

[15]   Ohtakara, K., Hayashi, S., Tanaka, H. and Hoshi, H. (2011) Dosimetric Comparison of 2.5 mm vs. 3.0 mm Leaf Width Micro-Multileaf Collimator-Based Treatment Systems for Intracranial Stereotactic Radiosurgery Using Dynamic Conformal Arcs: Implications for Treatment Planning. Japanese Journal of Radiology, 29, 630-638.

[16]   Colombo, F., Pozza, F., Chierego, G., Casentini, L., De Luca, G. and Francescon, P. (1994) Linear Accelerator Radiosurgery of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations: An Update. Neurosurgery, 34, 14-20.

[17]   Friedman, W., Bova, F. and Mendenhall, W. (1995) Linear Accelerator Radiosurgery for Arteriovenous Malformations: The Relationship of Size to Outcome. Journal of Neurosurgery, 82, 180-189.

[18]   Wagner, T.H., Bova, F.J., Friedman, W.A., Buatti, J.M., Bouchet, L.G. and Meeks, S.L. (2003) A Simple and Reliable Index for Scoring Rival Stereotactic Radiosurgery Plans. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 57, 1141-1149.

[19]   Dutta, D., Balaji Subramanian, S., Murli, V., Sudahar, H., Gopalakrishna Kurup, P.G. and Potharaju, M. (2012) Dosimetry Comparison of Linac-Based (BrainLAB) and Robotic Radiosurgery (CyberKnife) Stereotactic System Plans for Acoustic Schwannoma. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 106, 637-642.

[20]   Laakso, A., Dashti, R., Seppanen, J., Juvela, S., Vaart, K., Niemela, M., Sankila, R. and Hernesniemi, J.A. (2008) Long-Term Excess Mortality in 623 Patients with Brain Arteriovenous Malformations. Neurosurgery, 63, 244-253.