Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformations and acoustic neuromas.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_A1B771AC4A66
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformations and acoustic neuromas.
Journal
Radiotherapy and Oncology
ISSN
1879-0887 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0167-8140
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2013
Volume
106
Number
2
Pages
192-197
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tPublication Status: ppublish
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the influence of beam modulation on treatment planning by comparing four available stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) modalities: Gamma-Knife-Perfexion, Novalis-Tx Dynamic-Conformal-Arc (DCA) and Dynamic-Multileaf-Collimation-Intensity-Modulated-radiotherapy (DMLC-IMRT), and Cyberknife.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with arteriovenous malformation (n = 10) or acoustic neuromas (n = 5) were planned with different treatment modalities. Paddick conformity index (CI), dose heterogeneity (DH), gradient index (GI) and beam-on time were used as dosimetric indices.
RESULTS: Gamma-Knife-Perfexion can achieve high degree of conformity (CI = 0.77 ± 0.04) with limited low-doses (GI = 2.59 ± 0.10) surrounding the inhomogeneous dose distribution (D(H) = 0.84 ± 0.05) at the cost of treatment time (68.1 min ± 27.5). Novalis-Tx-DCA improved this inhomogeneity (D(H) = 0.30 ± 0.03) and treatment time (16.8 min ± 2.2) at the cost of conformity (CI = 0.66 ± 0.04) and Novalis-TX-DMLC-IMRT improved the DCA CI (CI = 0.68 ± 0.04) and inhomogeneity (D(H) = 0.18 ± 0.05) at the cost of low-doses (GI = 3.94 ± 0.92) and treatment time (21.7 min ± 3.4) (p<0.01). Cyberknife achieved comparable conformity (CI = 0.77 ± 0.06) at the cost of low-doses (GI = 3.48 ± 0.47) surrounding the homogeneous (D(H) = 0.22 ± 0.02) dose distribution and treatment time (28.4min±8.1) (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Gamma-Knife-Perfexion will comply with all SRS constraints (high conformity while minimizing low-dose spread). Multiple focal entries (Gamma-Knife-Perfexion and Cyberknife) will achieve better conformity than High-Definition-MLC of Novalis-Tx at the cost of treatment time. Non-isocentric beams (Cyberknife) or IMRT-beams (Novalis-Tx-DMLC-IMRT) will spread more low-dose than multiple isocenters (Gamma-Knife-Perfexion) or dynamic arcs (Novalis-Tx-DCA). Inverse planning and modulated fluences (Novalis-Tx-DMLC-IMRT and CyberKnife) will deliver the most homogeneous treatment. Furthermore, Linac-based systems (Novalis and Cyberknife) can perform image verification at the time of treatment delivery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with arteriovenous malformation (n = 10) or acoustic neuromas (n = 5) were planned with different treatment modalities. Paddick conformity index (CI), dose heterogeneity (DH), gradient index (GI) and beam-on time were used as dosimetric indices.
RESULTS: Gamma-Knife-Perfexion can achieve high degree of conformity (CI = 0.77 ± 0.04) with limited low-doses (GI = 2.59 ± 0.10) surrounding the inhomogeneous dose distribution (D(H) = 0.84 ± 0.05) at the cost of treatment time (68.1 min ± 27.5). Novalis-Tx-DCA improved this inhomogeneity (D(H) = 0.30 ± 0.03) and treatment time (16.8 min ± 2.2) at the cost of conformity (CI = 0.66 ± 0.04) and Novalis-TX-DMLC-IMRT improved the DCA CI (CI = 0.68 ± 0.04) and inhomogeneity (D(H) = 0.18 ± 0.05) at the cost of low-doses (GI = 3.94 ± 0.92) and treatment time (21.7 min ± 3.4) (p<0.01). Cyberknife achieved comparable conformity (CI = 0.77 ± 0.06) at the cost of low-doses (GI = 3.48 ± 0.47) surrounding the homogeneous (D(H) = 0.22 ± 0.02) dose distribution and treatment time (28.4min±8.1) (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Gamma-Knife-Perfexion will comply with all SRS constraints (high conformity while minimizing low-dose spread). Multiple focal entries (Gamma-Knife-Perfexion and Cyberknife) will achieve better conformity than High-Definition-MLC of Novalis-Tx at the cost of treatment time. Non-isocentric beams (Cyberknife) or IMRT-beams (Novalis-Tx-DMLC-IMRT) will spread more low-dose than multiple isocenters (Gamma-Knife-Perfexion) or dynamic arcs (Novalis-Tx-DCA). Inverse planning and modulated fluences (Novalis-Tx-DMLC-IMRT and CyberKnife) will deliver the most homogeneous treatment. Furthermore, Linac-based systems (Novalis and Cyberknife) can perform image verification at the time of treatment delivery.
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
13/06/2013 18:29
Last modification date
20/08/2019 16:07
Usage data
