onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-11-07

digest generated 2026-11-07

Dose-adapted single-isocenter SRS for 4 to 10 brain mets (prospective): 22/40 outlived DS-GPA prediction, 1-yr local failure 5%, no G3-5 toxicity.
A CNS-only day on linac single-isocenter SRS for multiple brain mets. The one prospective cohort shows 1-yr local failure 5% with no G3-5 toxicity. Four planning or retrospective studies favor HyperArc and non-coplanar VMAT on gradient and V12Gy, and a simulated 1 mm GTV-PTV margin restored coverage lost to residual setup error.

CNS

All five studies address single-isocenter linac SRS technique. Only one is prospective, and the rest rely on dosimetric surrogates or retrospective local control.

Early signal

Manual to automated (HyperArc) VMAT SRS transition

ForBrain metastases treated with single-isocenter linac SRS, no PTV margin

TL;DRPaddick GI 5.42 vs 7.09 (P<.001), time in room 10.5 vs 11.4 min, RTOG CI unchanged; HyperArc 1-yr LC 90.1% across 377 mets.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The gradient advantage is not just more arcs: at 2 table angles Paddick GI was 3.68 vs 4.67 (P<.001), and conformity was unchanged. Zero-margin single-isocenter multitarget delivery still gave 1-yr LC 90.1%, which supports keeping PTV=GTV when localization and intrafraction motion are tightly managed.

Monday clinic

For multiple brain mets planned single-isocenter with PTV=GTV, this supports automated HyperArc as plan-quality parity with an expert manual VMAT program; it does not address targets far from isocenter, benign or vascular indications, or late radionecrosis. The longer read

12 details 2 trials watching

Single-institution retrospective comparison of 693 single-isocenter VMAT SRS plans: HyperArc (23-pt pilot + 350 pts) vs 320 consecutive prior mVMAT pts as historical control. Clinical outcomes evaluated only in the HyperArc cohort.

Plan cohort mixed metastatic and benign/vascular targets; 59.9% single-target, 12.0% with 6 to 22 targets. Clinical cohort: 107 pts with 377 brain mets, median age 58, mostly NSCLC, breast and melanoma.

No margin on GTV. 18-20 Gy in 1 fx, or 30 Gy/5 fx when any target exceeded 2-3 cm or involved deep structures. 10 MV FFF, HD120 MLC, CBCT with 6DOF correction.

Per-target conformity, gradient and falloff indices, mean brain dose, film PSQA against TG-218, planning and delivery times. Clinical: lesion-level LC (no 25% diameter increase) and grade 3+ CTCAE v5 toxicity.

Conformity equivalent; gradient and falloff favor HyperArc; mean brain dose 4.6% vs 5.1%. 1-yr LC 90.1%, 3 grade 3 seizures, no grade 4/5.

MetricHyperArcmVMATP
RTOG conformity index1.141.13.322
Paddick conformity index0.860.87.048
Paddick gradient index5.427.09<.001
Falloff index6.258.09<.001
Mean brain dose4.6%5.1%.04
Median no. of arcs32<.001
TG-218 tolerance (gamma ≥95%, 3%/2 mm)97%94%.024
TG-218 action limit (gamma ≥90%)100%98%.072
Planning time77 min72 min.61
Time in room10.5 min11.4 min<.001

Builds on the Clark 2012 class solution and the Thomas 2014 low-dose-spill penalty that matched Gamma Knife plans. Here the automated tool reaches that expert-solution level without nested tuning structures.

single-isocenter linac SRS for brain mets with PTV=GTV at a center experienced in VMAT SRS
Does not represent benign or vascular targets, or a clinical head-to-head against manual VMAT.

Software version differs between eras (Eclipse 15.5 vs 13.6). Planning time measured from structure-set timestamps as a surrogate. LC depends on 47 tumors at risk at 1 year.

The case for automation is standardization, not a dosimetric leap: an expert manual program already sits near the ceiling. What remains unsettled is rotational-error underdosing of off-isocenter targets with zero margin, and which plan-quality metric actually tracks clinical outcome.

Retrospective historical-control dosimetric comparison; clinical outcomes single-arm HyperArc only with 5-mo median imaging f/u and toxicity scored by chart review.

Sourced from Popple, Richard A. et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Popple, Richard A.; Brown, Matthew H.; Thomas, Evan M. et al. · Practical Radiation Oncology (2021-03)
Transition From Manual to Automated Planning and Delivery of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Clinical, Dosimetric, and Quality Assurance Results
Early signal

Dose-adapted single-isocenter SRS for 4 to 10 brain mets (prospective) NCT02886572

For4-10 untreated brain mets, KPS ≥70, excluding SCLC, lymphoma, germ-cell, LMD

TL;DRmOS 8.1 mo, 1-yr OS 35.7%; 22/40 outlived DS-GPA prediction (≥17 needed for non-inferiority), 1-yr local failure 5%, no G3-5 toxicity.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The transferable piece is the dose-adaptation rule: switching every lesion to 5 Gy x5 when V12Gy exceeds 20 mL or a brainstem lesion is present gave 98% per-lesion LC with 1.3% necrosis, at aggregate PTV up to 32 mL. That supports hypofractionating the whole plan in high-volume cases instead of de-escalating single-fraction dose.

Monday clinic

For a KPS ≥70 pt with 4 to 10 non-SCLC brain mets and aggregate volume pushing single-fraction V12Gy past 20 mL, this supports a single-isocenter 5 Gy x5 plan as a feasible SRS option; it does not address SCLC, leptomeningeal disease, or more than 10 lesions. The longer read

14 details 4 trials watching

Prospective single-arm trial, N=40, enrolled Feb 2017 to Aug 2019, registered NCT02886572. Median follow-up 15.2 mo. Funded by Varian Medical Systems.

4 to 10 untreated brain mets, age ≥18, KPS ≥70, life expectancy >3 mo, DS-GPA ≥0.5, largest lesion ≤4 cm, >2 mm from optic apparatus; brainstem lesions allowed. Excluded SCLC, germ-cell, lymphoma, leukemia, myeloma, leptomeningeal disease. Median age 61, KPS 90, 6 mets; NSCLC 50%, breast 27.5%; 11 had prior SRS/WBRT.

Single-isocenter VMAT, 1 mm PTV margin. 20 Gy for PTV <2 cm, 18 Gy for 2.0 to <3.0 cm; 5 Gy x5 to all lesions if any PTV >3 cm, any brainstem lesion, or brain V12Gy >20 mL. 24 pts (125 lesions) got 1 fraction, 16 pts (79 lesions) got 5; median beam-on 8 min.

Primary: OS, judged non-inferior if ≥17 of 40 pts outlived DS-GPA-predicted survival. Secondary: local recurrence, distant brain recurrence, neurologic death, AEs, QOL, steroid use.

22 pts outlived prediction; mOS 8.1 mo, 1-yr OS 35.7%. 1-yr local failure 5% (10 of 204 lesions); distant brain recurrence 35.8% at 12 mo. Neurologic death 20% of deaths.

EndpointSingle fraction5 fractions
Local failure, lesions8 of 119 (no dose adjustment)2 of 79
Local control93%98%
Radionecrosis per lesion3.4% (4 of 119)1.3% (1 of 79)

AEs in 73%, all G1-2, mostly headache and fatigue; no G3-5 treatment-related AEs. Radionecrosis in 5 lesions in 4 pts; 2 pts needed surgery. MMSE, Trail Making, HVLT and FACT-Br unchanged at 3 mo.

mOS of 8.1 mo sits inside the range of prior multi-met SRS series summarized in the paper's Table 4 (medians 5.8 to 14.1 mo), most of them retrospective. The randomized SRS vs WBRT trials for 4 to 20 mets (NCT03550391, NCT03075072, NCT01592968) are the comparators this cannot replace.

KPS ≥70 pts with 4 to 10 non-SCLC brain mets, lesions ≤4 cm, treated on a linac SIMT platform
Does not represent SCLC, leptomeningeal disease, >10 lesions, or pts expected to live <3 mo.

The DS-GPA benchmark uses the original formulation, measures from first brain-met diagnosis, and was applied here from protocol SRS in a cohort where 11 had prior brain RT. LC and DBF exclude the 8 pts who died before first MRI, and the paper's own Discussion gives a 6-mo distant failure figure (58%) that conflicts with its Results (20%).

The OS endpoint mostly shows the technique does not shorten life against a prognostic index; it cannot show SRS beats WBRT. The more usable signal is the per-lesion one: 5-fraction plans held 98% LC with low necrosis despite larger volumes, which supports hypofractionating high-volume multi-met plans.

Single-arm, N=40, single institution; OS benchmarked against a DS-GPA prediction, not a randomized WBRT or multi-isocenter comparator. Too few events for LC or necrosis modeling.

Sourced from Kim, Grace J. et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Kim, Grace J.; Buckley, Evan D.; Herndon, James E. et al. · Advances in Radiation Oncology (2021-11)
Outcomes in Patients With 4 to 10 Brain Metastases Treated With Dose-Adapted Single-Isocenter Multitarget Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Prospective Study
Caveats dominate

Interinstitutional plan quality: Elements MME vs RapidArc single-isocenter SRS

For4-10 brain metastases, single-isocenter linac SRS, single fraction

TL;DRRapidArc lowered median V12Gy 19.2 vs 23.7 cc (P<.0001) and improved conformity; MME lowered V5Gy and mean brain dose (2.57 vs 2.76 Gy).

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The platforms trade dose bands rather than one beating the other. RA lowers the V12Gy/V8Gy band tied to radionecrosis, while MME lowers dose below roughly 6 Gy. The V12 advantage holds only above 2.1 cc total PTV (ratio mean 1.24); below that, MME matched or beat RA on V12 in 4 of 6 cases.

Monday clinic

For a pt with 4-10 brain mets and total PTV above 2.1 cc, this favors single-isocenter VMAT for lower V12Gy. With very small total PTV, MME matched or beat RA on V12 in 4 of 6 cases. Low-dose spill differences have no outcome correlation yet. The longer read

16 details 3 trials watching

Paired dosimetric replanning study at 2 institutions (TJU, UAB). 15 previously treated pts from each site were replanned by the other site with its own technique. Comparison by paired 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank, prespecified α .05.

30 pts with 4 to 10 brain metastases, 217 targets, median 7.5 per case. Individual target volume 0.014 to 17.73 cm3; total PTV 0.49 to 27.32 cm3, median 7.05 cm3.

14 to 24 Gy single fraction, prescriptions unchanged between plans and largely RTOG 9508-based. RA used 2 to 4 noncoplanar VMAT arcs at 10 MV FFF with 3 ring tuning structures. MME used automated noncoplanar DCAs at 6 MV FFF with up to 1 mm MLC margin and island-blocking avoidance.

Per target: RTOG CI, Paddick CI, coverage. Per plan: V12Gy, V8Gy, V5Gy, mean brain dose, plus arc, MU, and beam-on estimates.

RA favored conformity and the V12Gy/V8Gy band; MME favored V5Gy and Dmean. The brain DVHs cross near 6 Gy, and below 2.1 cc total PTV MME was favorable on most metrics.

MetricMME (DCA)RA (VMAT)p
RTOG CI (per target)1.381.23 (abstract: 1.21)<.0001
Paddick CI (per target)0.700.77<.0001
V12Gy (cc)23.719.2<.0001
V8Gy (cc)53.644.1.024
V5Gy (cc)141.4142.8.009
Mean brain dose (Gy)2.572.76<.0001
Mean target coverage97.5%96.9%.007

Gevaert et al (10 cases, 40 mets) found higher V12Gy and V5Gy for RA. Its Paddick CI of 0.65 ± 0.08 (MME) and 0.67 ± 0.16 (RA) sits below this study's 0.70 and 0.77, which the authors read as plans that were not fully optimized. Narayanasamy et al (8 pts, 40 targets) found the platforms comparable but was likely underpowered.

4 to 10 brain mets planned by expert single-isocenter linac teams on Eclipse 13.6 RA or Elements MME v1.5
Does not represent HyperArc, newer MME versions, >10 targets, fractionated SRS, or less experienced VMAT planners.

Different beam energies and dose algorithms (pencil beam vs AAA) per platform, so platform effects cannot be cleanly separated from energy and algorithm. Each platform had one expert institution, so planner skill is part of the RA result. Hotspots and homogeneity were not compared, and text and Table 1 medians disagree for V12.

Both platforms met clinical goals, and the differences are small and dose-band specific. Moderate isodose spill has retrospective links to radionecrosis, while low-dose spill has no toxicity correlation yet. It may matter more as pts survive to repeat SRS or WBRT.

Dosimetric planning study with no clinical endpoints; 6 vs 10 MV energy and two dose algorithms confound the platform comparison. Platform and planner effects not separable.

Sourced from Liu, Haisong et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Liu, Haisong; Thomas, Evan M.; Li, Jun et al. · Advances in Radiation Oncology (2020-09)
Interinstitutional Plan Quality Assessment of 2 Linac-Based, Single-Isocenter, Multiple Metastasis Radiosurgery Techniques
Early signal

Automated single-isocenter SRS for multiple brain mets: outcomes and margins

For4-10 brain mets <3 cm, frameless linac SRS, lung/breast/melanoma-dominant

TL;DR1y LC 89% per pt and 94% per lesion. Residual setup error caused coverage loss (V95 <95%) in 28 targets; simulated 1 mm GTV-PTV margin restored coverage.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Coverage loss clustered in small lesions far from isocenter: about 90% of V95 <95% misses were lesions <0.4 cm3 at ≥3.9 cm. Uncorrected intrafraction drift cost GTV coverage in 28% of lesions, so the 1 mm margin depends on 6D monitoring with mid-treatment correction.

Monday clinic

For a pt with 4-10 small brain mets on a frameless linac with 6D ExacTrac and mid-treatment re-imaging, this supports a 1 mm GTV-PTV margin over 0 mm; it does not address mask setups without intrafraction correction or cumulative volumes ≥15 cm3. The longer read

16 details 4 trials watching

Retrospective two-center series (Rome, Negrar), 31 consecutive pts, 204 BM. Outcomes by Kaplan-Meier from SRS; dosimetric accuracy from offline CBCT fused to planning CT with residual shifts applied.

Age ≥18, 4-10 BM <3 cm. Median age 60; lung 14, melanoma 8, breast 5. Concurrent systemic therapy in 9 pts (IO 4, targeted 5).

Single-isocenter DCA via Brainlab Elements, 10 noncoplanar arcs at 5 couch positions. 20-22 Gy for <2 cm, 16-18 Gy for ≥2 cm or near critical structures; PTV = GTV + 1 mm (176 lesions) or 2 mm (28).

1y/2y LC 89%/77% per pt, 94%/86% per lesion; mOS 16.1 mo. Coverage loss (V95 <95%) in 28 targets, driven by distance ≥39 mm (P=.0001) and volume <0.40 cm3 (P=.015).

Endpoint1 yr2 yr
LC, per patient89%77%
LC, per lesion94%86%
OS68%40%
Distant brain failure38%n/r
FactorLesions losing coverageP
Distance <39 mm vs ≥39 mm7 vs 21.0001
Volume <0.40 cm3 vs ≥0.40 cm320 vs 8.015
Diameter0 mm1 mm2 mm3 mm
0.5 cm0.07 cm30.18 cm30.38 cm30.7 cm3
1 cm0.52 cm30.9 cm31.43 cm32.21 cm3
1.5 cm1.76 cm32.57 cm33.59 cm34.85 cm3
2 cm4.18 cm35.57 cm37.23 cm39.2 cm3

No G3-4 toxicity. Necrosis in 5 (16.1%) pts, 11% per lesion at 12 mo, 2 with G2 motor deficit; individual V12Gy >10 cm3 predicted it (P=.01).

Roper et al showed coverage held at 0.5° simulated rotation but failed in over one-third of plans at 2°; here measured residuals stayed within 0.5 mm / 0.5° tolerance, which is why 1 mm sufficed. Necrosis tracking V12Gy matches the Korytko gamma knife series the authors cite.

4-10 small BM treated frameless on a linac with 6D setup and intrafraction correction
Does not represent setups without mid-treatment imaging, lesions ≥3 cm, or pts needing formal neurocognitive endpoints.

The paper reports pt counts inconsistently (4-6/7-10 vs 4-7/8-10; 10 vs 12 pts with coverage loss). LC is not stratified by margin or by distance from isocenter, so the clinical consequence of the dosimetric miss is untested.

The case for 1 mm is a trade-off: the margin rescues small distal targets while Table 4 shows each added millimetre inflates a 1 cm lesion's volume steeply, feeding V12Gy. That trade-off only holds if intrafraction drift is caught and corrected.

Retrospective 31-pt series, median f/u 11 mo, no comparator arm; margin conclusion rests on dosimetric re-computation, not lesion-level clinical failure by margin.

Sourced from Minniti, Giuseppe et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Minniti, Giuseppe; Capone, Luca; Alongi, Filippo et al. · Advances in Radiation Oncology (2020-09)
Initial Experience With Single-Isocenter Radiosurgery to Target Multiple Brain Metastases Using an Automated Treatment Planning Software: Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Target Volume Margins Strategy
Caveats dominate

DCAT vs CoVMAT vs NcVMAT for single brain met

ForSingle brain met, 2-3 cm, LINAC SRS 20 Gy/1 fx

TL;DRNon-coplanar VMAT cut normal-brain V12Gy to 9.4 vs 11.6 (DCAT) vs 15.1 cm3 (coplanar VMAT) for 2-3 cm single brain mets, 20 Gy/1 fx.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The coplanar-only VMAT many centers default to was the worst plan for low and intermediate spill (V12Gy 15.1 cm3, V5Gy 96.8 cm3), not merely a wash vs DCAT. For 2-3 cm lesions, where necrosis risk rises, adding non-coplanar arcs is what earns VMAT its advantage, at the cost of longer beam-on time.

Monday clinic

In a 2-3 cm single brain met planned for LINAC SRS, this supports non-coplanar over coplanar-only VMAT when normal-brain V12Gy is the constraint; it does not address multiple mets, single-isocenter multi-target plans, or fractionated SRT. The longer read

10 details

Dosimetric planning study: three plans (DCAT, CoVMAT, NcVMAT) per pt for 15 pts treated April 2016 to October 2017, single institution. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc for PTV/GTV indices; repeated-measures ANOVA with Holm for normal brain.

Single brain metastasis, longest diameter 2-3 cm, chosen because local control and radionecrosis are worse than for smaller lesions. Median PTV 6.4 cm3 (range 3.7-16.2).

20 Gy/1 fx to PTV (GTV + 1 mm), normalized to D99.5%, 6 MV on TrueBeam STx, AcurosXB. PTV D2% held near 142% of Rx across techniques so the comparison is at matched heterogeneity.

NcVMAT gave the best conformity (RTOG-CI and Paddick CI vs DCAT) and lowest normal-brain V20 to V5Gy vs both comparators. CoVMAT had the largest V15Gy through V5Gy and the fewest MU; both VMAT techniques ran longer beam-on than DCAT.

IndexDCATCoVMATNcVMATDCAT vs CoVMAT pDCAT vs NcVMAT pCoVMAT vs NcVMAT p
V20Gy2.44 ± 1.782.48 ± 1.871.64 ± 1.130.88<0.05<0.05
V15Gy7.22 ± 4.088.52 ± 4.895.95 ± 3.10<0.05<0.05<0.05
V12Gy11.6 ± 6.515.1 ± 8.29.4 ± 4.9<0.05<0.05<0.05
V10Gy16.8 ± 9.022.7 ± 12.013.9 ± 6.8<0.05<0.05<0.05
V5Gy49.2 ± 28.496.8 ± 55.442.9 ± 20.3<0.05<0.05<0.05

Vogelbaum et al. showed higher local recurrence and radionecrosis for mets >2.0 cm, which is the population chosen here. Molinier et al. compared the same three techniques but across mixed intracranial targets and with different TPS and algorithms, which this study removes as a confounder.

LINAC SRS planning for a single 2-3 cm brain met at 20 Gy/1 fx on an Eclipse/TrueBeam platform
Does not represent multiple mets, Gamma Knife, fractionated SRT, or other planning systems.

V12Gy is a planning surrogate for necrosis; no clinical outcomes were measured. Plan quality for inverse-optimized techniques is operator- and optimizer-dependent, and DCAT plans used manual MLC shaping, so the margin between techniques may not transfer across centers.

The useful finding is that coplanar-only VMAT is not an adequate substitute for non-coplanar DCAT on low-dose spill, while non-coplanar VMAT beats both. The cost is beam-on time, relevant for intrafraction motion in frameless SRS.

Planning study in 15 pts; dosimetric V12Gy surrogate stands in for radionecrosis, with no clinical outcomes, single TPS and single institution.

  • Does lower planned V12Gy with NcVMAT reduce clinical radionecrosis?
  • Does the advantage hold for multiple mets or single-isocenter plans?
  • Does longer beam-on time erode the gain in frameless SRS?

Sourced from Torizuka, Daichi et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Torizuka, Daichi; Uto, Megumi; Takehana, Keiichi et al. · Journal of Radiation Research (2021-10)
Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis
Abstract
Abstract In the delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) by linear accelerator (LINAC), dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) with non-coplanar beams is conventionally used. However, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve target conformity, thereby decreasing the dose to organs at risk by inversed planning methods, but few studies have directly compared DCAT and VMAT with and without non-coplanar beams in patients with single brain metastasis. We therefore conducted a planning study to compare the dose distribution in DCAT, VMAT using only a coplanar arc (CoVMAT) and VMAT with non-coplanar arcs (NcVMAT) in the treatment of single brain metastasis. DCAT, CoVMAT and NcVMAT plans were created for 15 patients. The three modalities were compared in terms of target conformity, target coverage, the dose to normal brain tissue, monitor units (MUs) and beam-on time. Both conformity indices (RTOG-CI and IP-CI) as well as the D98% of the gross target volume (GTV) were significantly better in the NcVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Comparisons of the doses to normal brain tissue revealed that the V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy were significantly smaller in the NcVMAT plans than in the plans based on the other two modalities. The MUs of the DCAT and NcVMAT plans were larger than those of the CoVMAT plans, and the beam-on time was longer in the NcVMAT and CoVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Compared to the CoVMAT and DCAT plans, NcVMAT plans significantly improved target conformity and reduced the doses to normal brain tissue at V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy.