Geometric and dosimetric uncertainties in intracranial stereotatctic treatments for multiple nonisocentric lesions

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of geometric uncertainties of patient position on treatments of multiple nonisocentric intracranial lesions. The average distance between lesions in patients with multiple targets was determined by a retrospective survey of patients with multiple lesions. Retrospective patient imaging data from fractionated stereotactic patients were used to calculate interfractional and intrafractional patient position uncertainty. Three different immobilization devices were included in the positioning study. The interfractional and intrafractional patient positioning error data were used to calculate the geometric offset of a lesion located at varying distances from the mechanical isocenter for treatments of multiple lesions with a single arc, assuming that no intrafractional position correction is employed during an arc rotation. Dosimetric effects were studied using two representative lesions of two sizes, 6 mm and 13 mm maximum dimensions, and prescribed to 20 Gy and 18 Gy, respectively. Distances between lesions ranged from < 10 mm to 150 mm, which would correspond to a range of isocenter to lesion separations of < 10 mm to 75 mm, assuming an isocenter located at the geometric mean. In the presence of a full six degree of freedom patient correction system, the effects of the intrafractional patient positioning uncertainties were less than 1.8 mm (3.6 mm) for 1σ (2σ) deviations for lesion spacing up to 75 mm assuming a quadratic summation of 1σ and 2σ. Without the benefit of a six DOF correction device, only correcting for three translations, the effects of the intrafractional patient positioning uncertainties were within 3.1 mm (7.2 mm) for 1σ (2σ) deviations for distances up to 75 mm. 1σ and 2σ deviations along all six axes were observed in 3.6% and 0.3%, respectively, of 974 fractions analyzed. Dosimetric effects for 2 mm and 4 mm offsets were most significant for the small lesion with minimum dose ([Formula: see text]) decreasing from 20 Gy to 13.6 Gy and 5.7 Gy and volume receiving the prescription (V(20Gy)) reducing from 100% to 57% and 16%, respectively. The dosimetric effects on the larger lesion were less pronounced with [Formula: see text] reducing from 18 Gy to 17.5 Gy and 14.2 Gy, and V(18Gy) reducing from 100% to 98.3% and 85.4%, for 2 mm and 4 mm offsets, respectively. In the 1σ scenario (3.6% of patients) angular uncertainties in patient positioning can introduce 1.0 mm shifts in the location of the lesion position at distances of 75 mm, compared to an isocentric treatment even with a full six DOF correction. Without the ability to correct angular positioning errors, a lesion positioned 75 mm away from the mechanical isocenter can be located in 3.6% of patients > 3.0 mm distant from the planned position. Dosimetric results depend upon the distance from isocenter and the size of the target. Single isocenter treatments for multiple lesions should be considered only when full six DOF corrections can be applied, the intrafractional immobilization precision is well quantified, and a PTV expansion is included for more distant lesions to account for unavoidable residual patient positioning uncertainties. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.D‐