Dosimetric and Biological Outcomes of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Biophysics branch,Physics department,faculty of Science AL-Azhar university,Cairo,Egypt.

2 Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

3 Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

4 National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

10.22038/ijmp.2025.88946.2568

Abstract

Introduction: This research aimed to evaluate the radiation-induced secondary cancer risks in normal tissues following Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (GKR) compared with the Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT).
Material and Methods: Eleven patients with meningioma (2 males, 9 females; median age 30 years) were analyzed. For each case, Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKR) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created and compared using dosimetric-metrics and radiobiological modeling. The Organ Equivalent Dose (OED) was estimated using linear, linear-exponential, and plateau dose–response models, and the Excess Absolute Risk (EAR) was calculated for organs at risk to estimate secondary cancer risk.
Results: Dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity in the Planning Target Volume (PTV) improved significantly ('p'< 0.05) with GKR and VMAT. Higher OED was observed in the optic nerve due to proximity to the target. While the EAR of the optic nerve increased by 11.23%, 13.17%, and 14.86% in GK compared to VMAT for the linear, plateau, as well as linear-exponential models, respectively, in GK plans compared to VMAT, the EAR for the brain stem increased by 54.4%, 17.14%, and 30% in VMAT. GKR had a considerably greater Tumor Control Probability (TCP) (95.76%±2.86) than VMAT (84.29%± 2.27, 'p'= 2.8×10-6).
Conclusion: GKR provided better PTV dose coverage and conformity, whereas VMAT achieved superior dose homogeneity. According to EAR, VMAT had a greater second cancer risk than GK. For young patients, advanced radiotherapy techniques should be evaluated in consideration of dosimetric, radiobiological, and secondary cancer risks.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, Patil N, Waite K, Kruchko C, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2012– Neuro Oncol. 2019;21:v1–v100.
  2. Brastianos PK, Galanis E, Butowski N, Chan J. W Dunn IF, GoldbrunnerR, et al. Advances in multidisciplinary therapy for meningiomas. Neuro-oncology. 2019; 21(Supplement_1): i18-i31.‏
  3. Rockhill J, Mrugala M, Chamberlain MC. Intracranial meningiomas: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurgical focus. 2007; 23(4), E1.‏
  4. Elbaz GY, Hendam HM, Alashkar EM, ABOUELGHEIT HH, Ereiba KM, Attalla EM. (2023). Quality of Radiosurgical Plans by Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion in the Treatment of Meningioma: Comparison between two isodose lines (50% and 75%). Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2023; 20(1): 19-30.‏
  5. Sakthivel V, Mani GK, ManiS, Boopathy R. Radiation-induced second cancer risk from external beam photon radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: impact on in-field and out-of-field organs. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2017; 18(7): 1897.‏
  6. Lee HF, Lan JH, Chao PJ, Ting HM, Chen HC, Hsu HC, et al. Radiation-induced secondary malignancies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a pilot study of patients treated via IMRT or VMAT. Cancer Management and Research. 2018; 10: 131–
  7. Soliman MI, Attia WM, Elshahat KM. Dosimetric Evaluation Study of 10-MV FFF Used in SBRT for Lung Tumours. East European Journal of Physics. 2023; (3): 457-65.‏
  8. El-Agamawi, Ahmed Yousry, El-Shahat Khaled, ElGharbawy, Esmail Rasmy. Inverse Versus Forward IMRT Planning in Adjuvant Conventional Radiotherapy in Left Breast Cancer in correlation to cardiac constraints (A Retrospective Study). Al-Azhar International Medical Journal. 2024; 5(12): Article24.
  9. AB EI. LGP 10 Leksell Gamma Plan®. Online Reference Manual. 2011; 1023200 Rev. 01.
  10. Allen Li X, Alber M, Deasy JO, Jackson A, Ken Jee KW, Marks LB, et al. The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: Short report of the TG‐166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM. Medical physics. 2012; 39(3): 1386-409.
  11. Abo-Madyan Y, Aziz MH, Aly MM, Schneider F, Sperk E, Clausen S, et al. Second cancer risk after 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT for breast cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2014; 110(3): 471-6.‏
  12. Zwahlen DR, Ruben JD, Jones P, Gagliardi F, Millar JL, Schneider U. Effect of intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy on second cancer risk in the postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2009; 74(2): 539-45.
  13. Schneider U, Sumila M, Robotka J. Site-specific dose-response relationships for cancer induction from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 2011; 8: 1-21.‏
  14. Schneider U, Walsh L. Cancer risk estimates from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 2008; 47: 253-63.
  15. Paddick I, Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. Journal of neurosurgery. 2006; 105(Supplement): 194-201.
  16. Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Physica Medica. 2007; 23(3-4): 115-25.
  17. Ezz Elregal A, Hussain MS ED, El-Shahat KM. Evaluation of Preoperative Short Course Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma. Al-Azhar International Medical Journal. 2020; 1(8): 74-86.‏
  18. Mansour Z, Attalla EM, Sarhan A, Awad IA, Hamid MI. Study the influence of the number of beams on radiotherapy plans for the hyopfractionated treatment of breast cancer using biological model. J Adv Physics. 2019; 16: 377-90.‏
  19. Gregoire V, Mackie TR. Dose prescription, reporting and recording in intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a digest of the ICRU Report 83. Imaging in Medicine. 2011; 3(3): 367.‏
  20. Langer M, Morrill SS, Lane R. A test of the claim that plan rankings are determined by relative complication and tumor-control probabilities. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1998; 41(2): 451-7.
  21. Moiseenko V, Battista J, Van Dyk J. Normal tissue complication probabilities: dependence on choice of biological model and dose-volume histogram reduction scheme. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2000; 46(4): 983-93.
  22. Birckhead B, Sio TT, Pollock BE, Link MJ, Laack NN. Gamma Knife radiosurgery for neurofibromatosis type 2-associated meningiomas: a 22-year patient series. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2016; 130(3): 553-60.‏
  23. Practical implementation of a collapsed cone convolution algorithm for a radiation treatment planning system. Journal of the Korean Physical Society. 2012; 61: 2073-83.‏
  24. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958– Radiation research. 2007; 168(1): 1-64.‏
  25. Dracham CB, Shankar A, Madan R. Radiation induced secondary malignancies: a review article. Radiation oncology journal. 2018; 36(2): 85.‏
  26. Morton LM, Onel K, Curtis RE, Hungate EA, Armstrong GT. The rising incidence of second cancers: patterns of occurrence and identification of risk factors for children and adults. In American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting. 2014; e57-67.‏
  27. Hassan M, Attalla EM. Second cancer risk evaluation from breast radiotherapy using dose-response models. Egyptian Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Biophysics. 2021; 22(1): 29-43.‏
  28. Scoccianti S, Detti B, Gadda D, Greto D, Furfaro I, Meacci F, et al. Organs at risk in the brain and their dose-constraints in adults and in children: a radiation oncologist’s guide for delineation in everyday practice. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2015; 114(2): 230-8.

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 22, Issue 6 - Serial Number 6
November and December 2025
Pages 377-388

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 June 2025
  • Revise Date: 17 December 2025
  • Accept Date: 01 December 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics