Cargando…
Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans
The incidence of brain metastases is increasing and various treatment modalities exist for brain metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife) for multiple brain metastases compared with C‐arm linear accelerat...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839388/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31580532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12746 |
_version_ | 1783467412181483520 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Shuming Yang, Ruijie Wang, Xin |
author_facet | Zhang, Shuming Yang, Ruijie Wang, Xin |
author_sort | Zhang, Shuming |
collection | PubMed |
description | The incidence of brain metastases is increasing and various treatment modalities exist for brain metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife) for multiple brain metastases compared with C‐arm linear accelerator (linac) based plans. C‐arm linac based plans included intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non‐coplanar VMAT with 1, 3 and 5 non‐coplanar arcs, respectively (NC1, NC3 and NC5). For 20 patients, six plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in three fractions were generated. The gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), maximum dose (D(max)) of organs at risk (OARs), normal brain tissue volume (V(3 Gy)–V(24 Gy)), monitor units (MUs) and beam on time (BT) were evaluated. The GI of CyberKnife plans (3.60 ± 0.70) was lower than IMRT (6.21 ± 2.26, P < 0.05), VMAT (6.04 ± 1.93, P < 0.05), NC1 (5.16 ± 1.71, P < 0.05), NC3 (5.02 ± 1.59, P < 0.05) and NC5 (5.03 ± 1.72, P < 0.05). The CI of the VMAT plans (both coplanar and non‐coplanar) was larger than IMRT and CK plans. The D(max) for most OARs of the CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, although some differences were not statistically significant. The normal brain tissue volume of CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, and the normal brain tissue volume of non‐coplanar VMAT plans was lower than IMRT and VMAT plans at high‐moderate dose level. However, the MUs and BT of CyberKnife plans was more than C‐arm linac based plans. CyberKnife plan was better than C‐arm linac based plans in protecting normal brain tissue and OARs for patients with multiple brain metastases. C‐arm linac based plan with non‐coplanar arc provided better protection of normal brain tissue than coplanar plan. However, the BT of CyberKnife plan was longer than C‐arm linac based plans. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6839388 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68393882019-11-14 Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans Zhang, Shuming Yang, Ruijie Wang, Xin J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The incidence of brain metastases is increasing and various treatment modalities exist for brain metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife) for multiple brain metastases compared with C‐arm linear accelerator (linac) based plans. C‐arm linac based plans included intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non‐coplanar VMAT with 1, 3 and 5 non‐coplanar arcs, respectively (NC1, NC3 and NC5). For 20 patients, six plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in three fractions were generated. The gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), maximum dose (D(max)) of organs at risk (OARs), normal brain tissue volume (V(3 Gy)–V(24 Gy)), monitor units (MUs) and beam on time (BT) were evaluated. The GI of CyberKnife plans (3.60 ± 0.70) was lower than IMRT (6.21 ± 2.26, P < 0.05), VMAT (6.04 ± 1.93, P < 0.05), NC1 (5.16 ± 1.71, P < 0.05), NC3 (5.02 ± 1.59, P < 0.05) and NC5 (5.03 ± 1.72, P < 0.05). The CI of the VMAT plans (both coplanar and non‐coplanar) was larger than IMRT and CK plans. The D(max) for most OARs of the CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, although some differences were not statistically significant. The normal brain tissue volume of CyberKnife plan was lower than the C‐arm linac based plans, and the normal brain tissue volume of non‐coplanar VMAT plans was lower than IMRT and VMAT plans at high‐moderate dose level. However, the MUs and BT of CyberKnife plans was more than C‐arm linac based plans. CyberKnife plan was better than C‐arm linac based plans in protecting normal brain tissue and OARs for patients with multiple brain metastases. C‐arm linac based plan with non‐coplanar arc provided better protection of normal brain tissue than coplanar plan. However, the BT of CyberKnife plan was longer than C‐arm linac based plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6839388/ /pubmed/31580532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12746 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://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 Zhang, Shuming Yang, Ruijie Wang, Xin Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title | Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title_full | Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title_fullStr | Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title_full_unstemmed | Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title_short | Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
title_sort | dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: comparison with c‐arm linear accelerator based plans |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839388/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31580532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12746 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangshuming dosimetricqualityanddeliveryefficiencyofroboticradiosurgeryforbrainmetastasescomparisonwithcarmlinearacceleratorbasedplans AT yangruijie dosimetricqualityanddeliveryefficiencyofroboticradiosurgeryforbrainmetastasescomparisonwithcarmlinearacceleratorbasedplans AT wangxin dosimetricqualityanddeliveryefficiencyofroboticradiosurgeryforbrainmetastasescomparisonwithcarmlinearacceleratorbasedplans |