# Effect of different optimization parameters in single isocenter multiple brain metastases radiosurgery

## TL;DR

This study examines how different optimization parameters affect radiosurgery plans for multiple brain metastases, finding minor differences in plan quality.

## Contribution

The study provides insights into optimizing radiosurgery plans for multiple brain metastases using different parameters and beam types.

## Key findings

- Using flattening filter free beams reduced local dose to healthy tissue and shortened treatment times.
- More complex optimization scenarios reduced dose overlap between metastases.
- Plan quality metrics showed minor differences across scenarios.

## Abstract

Automated treatment planning for multiple brain metastases differs from traditional planning approaches. It is therefore helpful to understand which parameters for optimization are available and how they affect the plan quality. This study aims to provide a reference for designing multi-metastases treatment plans and to define quality endpoints for benchmarking the technique from a scientific perspective.

In all, 20 patients with a total of 183 lesions were retrospectively planned according to four optimization scenarios. Plan quality was evaluated using common plan quality parameters such as conformity index, gradient index and dose to normal tissue. Therefore, different scenarios with combinations of optimization parameters were evaluated, while taking into account dependence on the number of treated lesions as well as influence of different beams.

Different scenarios resulted in minor differences in plan quality. With increasing number of lesions, the number of monitor units increased, so did the dose to healthy tissue and the number of interlesional dose bridging in adjacent metastases. Highly modulated cases resulted in 4–10% higher V10% compared to less complex cases, while monitor units did not increase. Changing the energy to a flattening filter free (FFF) beam resulted in lower local V12Gy (whole brain-PTV) and even though the number of monitor units increased by 13–15%, on average 46% shorter treatment times were achieved.

Although no clinically relevant differences in parameters where found, we identified some variation in the dose distributions of the different scenarios. Less complex scenarios generated visually more dose overlap; therefore, a more complex scenario may be preferred although differences in the quality metrics appear minor.