Cargando…
The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems
BACKGROUND: Throughout the last years, carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK (CFP) pedicle screw systems were introduced to replace standard titanium alloy (Ti) implants for spinal instrumentation, promising improved radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning accuracy. We compared the dosimetric impact of both imp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32476247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12905 |
_version_ | 1783581057900085248 |
---|---|
author | Müller, Birgit S. Ryang, Yu‐Mi Oechsner, Markus Düsberg, Mathias Meyer, Bernhard Combs, Stephanie E. Wilkens, Jan J. |
author_facet | Müller, Birgit S. Ryang, Yu‐Mi Oechsner, Markus Düsberg, Mathias Meyer, Bernhard Combs, Stephanie E. Wilkens, Jan J. |
author_sort | Müller, Birgit S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Throughout the last years, carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK (CFP) pedicle screw systems were introduced to replace standard titanium alloy (Ti) implants for spinal instrumentation, promising improved radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning accuracy. We compared the dosimetric impact of both implants for intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT), with the focus on uncertainties in Hounsfield unit assignment of titanium alloy. METHODS: Retrospective planning was performed on CT data of five patients with Ti and five with CFP implants. Carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK systems comprised radiolucent pedicle screws with thin titanium‐coated regions and titanium tulips. For each patient, one IMPT and one VMAT plan were generated with a nominal relative stopping power (SP) (IMPT) and electron density (ρ) (VMAT) and recalculated onto the identical CT with increased and decreased SP or ρ by ±6% for the titanium components. RESULTS: Recalculated VMAT dose distributions hardly deviated from the nominal plans for both screw types. IMPT plans resulted in more heterogeneous target coverage, measured by the standard deviation σ inside the target, which increased on average by 7.6 ± 2.3% (Ti) vs 3.4 ± 1.2% (CFP). Larger SPs lead to lower target minimum doses, lower SPs to higher dose maxima, with a more pronounced effect for Ti screws. CONCLUSIONS: While VMAT plans showed no relevant difference in dosimetric quality between both screw types, IMPT plans demonstrated the benefit of CFP screws through a smaller dosimetric impact of CT‐value uncertainties compared to Ti. Reducing metal components in implants will therefore improve dose calculation accuracy and lower the risk for tumor underdosage. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7484848 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74848482020-09-17 The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems Müller, Birgit S. Ryang, Yu‐Mi Oechsner, Markus Düsberg, Mathias Meyer, Bernhard Combs, Stephanie E. Wilkens, Jan J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics BACKGROUND: Throughout the last years, carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK (CFP) pedicle screw systems were introduced to replace standard titanium alloy (Ti) implants for spinal instrumentation, promising improved radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning accuracy. We compared the dosimetric impact of both implants for intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT), with the focus on uncertainties in Hounsfield unit assignment of titanium alloy. METHODS: Retrospective planning was performed on CT data of five patients with Ti and five with CFP implants. Carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK systems comprised radiolucent pedicle screws with thin titanium‐coated regions and titanium tulips. For each patient, one IMPT and one VMAT plan were generated with a nominal relative stopping power (SP) (IMPT) and electron density (ρ) (VMAT) and recalculated onto the identical CT with increased and decreased SP or ρ by ±6% for the titanium components. RESULTS: Recalculated VMAT dose distributions hardly deviated from the nominal plans for both screw types. IMPT plans resulted in more heterogeneous target coverage, measured by the standard deviation σ inside the target, which increased on average by 7.6 ± 2.3% (Ti) vs 3.4 ± 1.2% (CFP). Larger SPs lead to lower target minimum doses, lower SPs to higher dose maxima, with a more pronounced effect for Ti screws. CONCLUSIONS: While VMAT plans showed no relevant difference in dosimetric quality between both screw types, IMPT plans demonstrated the benefit of CFP screws through a smaller dosimetric impact of CT‐value uncertainties compared to Ti. Reducing metal components in implants will therefore improve dose calculation accuracy and lower the risk for tumor underdosage. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7484848/ /pubmed/32476247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12905 Text en © 2020 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 Müller, Birgit S. Ryang, Yu‐Mi Oechsner, Markus Düsberg, Mathias Meyer, Bernhard Combs, Stephanie E. Wilkens, Jan J. The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title | The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title_full | The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title_fullStr | The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title_full_unstemmed | The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title_short | The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced PEEK systems |
title_sort | dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon‐fiber‐reinforced peek systems |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32476247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12905 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mullerbirgits thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT ryangyumi thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT oechsnermarkus thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT dusbergmathias thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT meyerbernhard thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT combsstephaniee thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT wilkensjanj thedosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT mullerbirgits dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT ryangyumi dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT oechsnermarkus dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT dusbergmathias dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT meyerbernhard dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT combsstephaniee dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems AT wilkensjanj dosimetricimpactofstabilizingspinalimplantsinradiotherapytreatmentplanningwithprotonsandphotonsstandardtitaniumalloyvsradiolucentcarbonfiberreinforcedpeeksystems |