Cargando…

Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems

Linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been widely used for treating small intracranial lesions. This technique allows conforming the dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), providing a steep dose gradient with the surrounding normal tissues. This is realized through dedicate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marrazzo, Livia, Zani, Margherita, Pallotta, Stefania, Greto, Daniela, Scoccianti, Silvia, Talamonti, Cinzia, Biti, Giampaolo, Bucciolini, Marta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24423831
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4100
Descripción
Sumario:Linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been widely used for treating small intracranial lesions. This technique allows conforming the dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), providing a steep dose gradient with the surrounding normal tissues. This is realized through dedicated collimation systems. The present study aims to compare SRS plans with two collimating systems: the beam modulator (BM) of the Elekta Synergy linac and the DirexGroup micromultileaf collimator [Formula: see text]. Seventeen patients (25 PTVs) were planned both with BM and [Formula: see text] (mounted on an Elekta Precise linac) using the Odyssey (PerMedics) treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were compared in terms of dose‐volume histograms (DVH), minimum dose to the PTV, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI), as defined by the TPS, and doses to relevant organs at risk (OAR). The mean difference between the [Formula: see text] and the BM plans in minimum PTV dose was [Formula: see text] in favor of the [Formula: see text] plans. No statistically significant difference was found between the distributions of the CI values for the two planning modalities [Formula: see text] , while the difference between the distributions of the HI values was statistically significant [Formula: see text]. For both BM and [Formula: see text] plans, no differences were observed in CI and HI, depending on lesion size and shape. The PTV homogeneity achieved by BM plans was [Formula: see text] compared to [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text]. Higher maximum and mean doses to OAR were observed in the BM plans; however, for both plans, dose constraints were respected. The comparison between the two collimating systems showed no substantial differences in terms of PTV coverage or OAR sparing. The improvements obtained by using [Formula: see text] are relatively small, and both systems turned out to be adequate for SRS treatments. PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.55.dk, 87.56.nk