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.
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.
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.
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
Gradient improvement persists at matched table-angle counts (Paddick GI 3.68 vs 4.67 at 2 angles), so it reflects the optimizer, not arc number alone. Zero-margin single-isocenter delivery with 1-yr LC 90.1% supports PTV=GTV under tight IGRT, though off-isocenter rotational error remains unaddressed.
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.
| Metric | HyperArc | mVMAT | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTOG conformity index | 1.14 | 1.13 | .322 |
| Paddick conformity index | 0.86 | 0.87 | .048 |
| Paddick gradient index | 5.42 | 7.09 | <.001 |
| Falloff index | 6.25 | 8.09 | <.001 |
| Mean brain dose | 4.6% | 5.1% | .04 |
| Median no. of arcs | 3 | 2 | <.001 |
| TG-218 tolerance (gamma ≥95%, 3%/2 mm) | 97% | 94% | .024 |
| TG-218 action limit (gamma ≥90%) | 100% | 98% | .072 |
| Planning time | 77 min | 72 min | .61 |
| Time in room | 10.5 min | 11.4 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.
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.
- Underdosing of off-isocenter targets from rotational error with zero margin recruiting Trial of Differential Margins in Single Isocenter Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=180 · primary completion 2028-06 · randomized 0mm vs 2mm margin, single-isocenter SRSn=166 · primary completion 2028-08 · randomized PTV margin omission, PFS endpoint
- Which plan-quality metric predicts LC and radionecrosis
- Durability of LC and late toxicity beyond 1 year
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
| Endpoint | Single fraction | 5 fractions |
|---|---|---|
| Local failure, lesions | 8 of 119 (no dose adjustment) | 2 of 79 |
| Local control | 93% | 98% |
| Radionecrosis per lesion | 3.4% (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.
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.
- SRS vs WBRT for 4 to 15 brain mets: survival and neurocognition n=126 · primary completion 2026-12 · SRS alone vs SRS+WBRT, 5 to 30 mets, prospectiven=90 · primary completion 2029-04 · SRS vs HA-WBRT vs CS-WBRT, ≥6 mets, 6-mo cognition
- Single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS for high aggregate volume intact mets active Comparing Single vs Multiple Dose Radiation for Cancer Patients With Brain Metastasis and Receiving Immunotherapy Phase NAn=58 · primary completion 2028-03 · SSRS vs FSRS for mets ≥2 cm or ≥4 cc on ICIn=504 · primary completion 2030-01 · randomised 3x10 Gy SRT vs single-dose SRS, ≤5 BM
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
| Metric | MME (DCA) | RA (VMAT) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTOG CI (per target) | 1.38 | 1.23 (abstract: 1.21) | <.0001 |
| Paddick CI (per target) | 0.70 | 0.77 | <.0001 |
| V12Gy (cc) | 23.7 | 19.2 | <.0001 |
| V8Gy (cc) | 53.6 | 44.1 | .024 |
| V5Gy (cc) | 141.4 | 142.8 | .009 |
| Mean brain dose (Gy) | 2.57 | 2.76 | <.0001 |
| Mean target coverage | 97.5% | 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.
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.
- Does low-dose brain spill predict cognitive decline after repeat SRS? n=80 · primary completion 2026-06 · prospective neurocognitive testing mapped after SRSn=110 · primary completion 2026-12 · MRI biomarkers of NCF decline after SRS vs WBRTn=90 · primary completion 2028-12 · cognitive-sparing SRS of parcellated critical regions
- Does HyperArc or newer Elements shift the dosimetric tradeoff?
- How does non-expert VMAT planning compare with automated MME?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
| Endpoint | 1 yr | 2 yr |
|---|---|---|
| LC, per patient | 89% | 77% |
| LC, per lesion | 94% | 86% |
| OS | 68% | 40% |
| Distant brain failure | 38% | n/r |
| Factor | Lesions losing coverage | P |
|---|---|---|
| Distance <39 mm vs ≥39 mm | 7 vs 21 | .0001 |
| Volume <0.40 cm3 vs ≥0.40 cm3 | 20 vs 8 | .015 |
| Diameter | 0 mm | 1 mm | 2 mm | 3 mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 cm | 0.07 cm3 | 0.18 cm3 | 0.38 cm3 | 0.7 cm3 |
| 1 cm | 0.52 cm3 | 0.9 cm3 | 1.43 cm3 | 2.21 cm3 |
| 1.5 cm | 1.76 cm3 | 2.57 cm3 | 3.59 cm3 | 4.85 cm3 |
| 2 cm | 4.18 cm3 | 5.57 cm3 | 7.23 cm3 | 9.2 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.
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.
- Lesion-level local failure by distance from isocenter and margin size recruiting Trial of Differential Margins in Single Isocenter Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=180 · primary completion 2028-06 · randomizes 0 vs 2 mm margin in single-isocenter SRS
- Neurocognitive outcome with formal testing after single-isocenter SRS for 5-10 BM n=80 · primary completion 2026-06 · SRS for ≥6 BM, ph2 1° EP neurocognitive declinen=110 · primary completion 2026-12 · prospective SRS cohort, 1-10 lesions, serial NCF testingn=90 · primary completion 2029-04 · rand ph2 SRS vs CS-WBRT vs HA-WBRT, ≥6 BM, 6-mo cognition
- Is 1 mm sufficient without intrafraction monitoring and correction?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
| Index | DCAT | CoVMAT | NcVMAT | DCAT vs CoVMAT p | DCAT vs NcVMAT p | CoVMAT vs NcVMAT p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V20Gy | 2.44 ± 1.78 | 2.48 ± 1.87 | 1.64 ± 1.13 | 0.88 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V15Gy | 7.22 ± 4.08 | 8.52 ± 4.89 | 5.95 ± 3.10 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V12Gy | 11.6 ± 6.5 | 15.1 ± 8.2 | 9.4 ± 4.9 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V10Gy | 16.8 ± 9.0 | 22.7 ± 12.0 | 13.9 ± 6.8 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V5Gy | 49.2 ± 28.4 | 96.8 ± 55.4 | 42.9 ± 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.
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?