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
_version_ 1783283043375513600
author Marrazzo, Livia
Zani, Margherita
Pallotta, Stefania
Greto, Daniela
Scoccianti, Silvia
Talamonti, Cinzia
Biti, Giampaolo
Bucciolini, Marta
author_facet Marrazzo, Livia
Zani, Margherita
Pallotta, Stefania
Greto, Daniela
Scoccianti, Silvia
Talamonti, Cinzia
Biti, Giampaolo
Bucciolini, Marta
author_sort Marrazzo, Livia
collection PubMed
description 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
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5711251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57112512018-04-02 Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems Marrazzo, Livia Zani, Margherita Pallotta, Stefania Greto, Daniela Scoccianti, Silvia Talamonti, Cinzia Biti, Giampaolo Bucciolini, Marta J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics 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 John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5711251/ /pubmed/24423831 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4100 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Marrazzo, Livia
Zani, Margherita
Pallotta, Stefania
Greto, Daniela
Scoccianti, Silvia
Talamonti, Cinzia
Biti, Giampaolo
Bucciolini, Marta
Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title_full Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title_fullStr Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title_short Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
title_sort comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT marrazzolivia comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT zanimargherita comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT pallottastefania comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT gretodaniela comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT scocciantisilvia comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT talamonticinzia comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT bitigiampaolo comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems
AT bucciolinimarta comparisonofstereotacticplansforbraintumorswithtwodifferentmultileafcollimatingsystems