Cargando…

Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study

ICRU 91, published in 2017, is an international standard for prescribing, recording, and reporting stereotactic treatments. Since its release, there has been limited research published on the implementation and impact of ICRU 91 on clinical practice. This work provides an assessment of the recommend...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conlon, Dion, Connolly, James, Galal, Mohamed, Ahmed, Ismail, Foley, Mark, Kleefeld, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36794436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13932
_version_ 1785054406806339584
author Conlon, Dion
Connolly, James
Galal, Mohamed
Ahmed, Ismail
Foley, Mark
Kleefeld, Christoph
author_facet Conlon, Dion
Connolly, James
Galal, Mohamed
Ahmed, Ismail
Foley, Mark
Kleefeld, Christoph
author_sort Conlon, Dion
collection PubMed
description ICRU 91, published in 2017, is an international standard for prescribing, recording, and reporting stereotactic treatments. Since its release, there has been limited research published on the implementation and impact of ICRU 91 on clinical practice. This work provides an assessment of the recommended ICRU 91 dose reporting metrics for their use in clinical treatment planning. A set of 180 intracranial stereotactic treatment plans for patients treated by the CyberKnife (CK) system were analyzed retrospectively using the ICRU 91 reporting metrics. The 180 plans comprised 60 trigeminal neuralgia (TGN), 60 meningioma (MEN), and 60 acoustic neuroma (AN) cases. The reporting metrics included the planning target volume (PTV) near‐minimum dose ([Formula: see text]), near‐maximum dose ([Formula: see text]), and median dose ([Formula: see text]), as well as the gradient index (GI) and conformity index (CI). The metrics were assessed for statistical correlation with several treatment plan parameters. In the TGN plan group, owing to the small targets, [Formula: see text] was greater than [Formula: see text] in 42 plans, whereas both metrics were not applicable in 17 plans. The [Formula: see text] metric was predominantly influenced by the prescription isodose line (PIDL). The GI was significantly dependent on target volume in all analyses performed, where the variables were inversely related. The CI was only dependent on target volume in treatment plans for small targets. The ICRU 91 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] metrics breakdown in plans for small target volumes below 1 cm(3); the Min and Max pixel should be reported in such cases. The [Formula: see text] metric is of limited use for treatment planning. Given their volume dependence, the GI and CI metrics could potentially serve as plan evaluation tools in the planning of the sites analyzed in this study, which would ultimately improve treatment plan quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10243338
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102433382023-06-07 Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study Conlon, Dion Connolly, James Galal, Mohamed Ahmed, Ismail Foley, Mark Kleefeld, Christoph J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics ICRU 91, published in 2017, is an international standard for prescribing, recording, and reporting stereotactic treatments. Since its release, there has been limited research published on the implementation and impact of ICRU 91 on clinical practice. This work provides an assessment of the recommended ICRU 91 dose reporting metrics for their use in clinical treatment planning. A set of 180 intracranial stereotactic treatment plans for patients treated by the CyberKnife (CK) system were analyzed retrospectively using the ICRU 91 reporting metrics. The 180 plans comprised 60 trigeminal neuralgia (TGN), 60 meningioma (MEN), and 60 acoustic neuroma (AN) cases. The reporting metrics included the planning target volume (PTV) near‐minimum dose ([Formula: see text]), near‐maximum dose ([Formula: see text]), and median dose ([Formula: see text]), as well as the gradient index (GI) and conformity index (CI). The metrics were assessed for statistical correlation with several treatment plan parameters. In the TGN plan group, owing to the small targets, [Formula: see text] was greater than [Formula: see text] in 42 plans, whereas both metrics were not applicable in 17 plans. The [Formula: see text] metric was predominantly influenced by the prescription isodose line (PIDL). The GI was significantly dependent on target volume in all analyses performed, where the variables were inversely related. The CI was only dependent on target volume in treatment plans for small targets. The ICRU 91 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] metrics breakdown in plans for small target volumes below 1 cm(3); the Min and Max pixel should be reported in such cases. The [Formula: see text] metric is of limited use for treatment planning. Given their volume dependence, the GI and CI metrics could potentially serve as plan evaluation tools in the planning of the sites analyzed in this study, which would ultimately improve treatment plan quality. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10243338/ /pubmed/36794436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13932 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Conlon, Dion
Connolly, James
Galal, Mohamed
Ahmed, Ismail
Foley, Mark
Kleefeld, Christoph
Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title_full Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title_fullStr Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title_short Analysis of CyberKnife intracranial treatment plans using ICRU 91 dose reporting: A retrospective study
title_sort analysis of cyberknife intracranial treatment plans using icru 91 dose reporting: a retrospective study
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36794436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13932
work_keys_str_mv AT conlondion analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy
AT connollyjames analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy
AT galalmohamed analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy
AT ahmedismail analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy
AT foleymark analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy
AT kleefeldchristoph analysisofcyberknifeintracranialtreatmentplansusingicru91dosereportingaretrospectivestudy