|
Comparison of lumbar spine metastasis plans involving different stereotactic radiotherapy devices
|
N. Isık   , E. Algül , G. Yaprak , A. Özen |
| Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Radyasyon Onkolojisi Klinigi, Istanbul, Turkey , nacisik@hotmail.com |
|
|
Abstract: (1315 Views) |
Background: We compare plans involving two different stereotactic radiotherapy devices: Cyberknife (CK) and Helical Tomotherapy (HTT) and their results on the lumbarvertebra targets. Materials and Methods: Ten simulation tomographs of the first lumbar vertebra were selected from among the tomographies of patients who had previously undergone SBRT for any reason. In each planning tomography, two separate clinical target volumes (CTV) were drawn at the first lumbar vertebra, we used 2%, 95% and 98% doses of the target volume (D2, D95, D98) in the plan evaluation. The 2% dose of the planning target volume (PTV) was used for comparison with the hot spot; the 95% dose coverage of CTV was used for the target coverage comparison, and the 98% dose of the target volume was used for the dose volume histogram "shoulder" metric definitionTheHomogeneity Index (HI), new Conformity Index (nCI) and Gradient Index (GI) were evaluated for each planning system and target. Results: In both groups, CTV1 and CTV2, when compared with D95, the coverage for HTT was found statistically significantly higher. D98 was found to be statistically significantly higher with HTT. In both targets, the CKplans were found to have a higher hot area (D2), and inhomogeneous plans were obtained when compared to HTT. The NCI results were similar, and GI was higher with HTT. Conclusion: In lumbar vertebra stereotactic radiotherapy, more inhomogeneous plans were obtained with Cyberknife than with the Helical Tomotherapy device. A better gradient index was achieved with Cyberknife, while better coverage was achieved on the HTT plan.
|
|
| Keywords: Vertebra metastasis, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), cyberknife, helical tomotherapy (HTT). |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 1639 kb]
(610 Downloads)
|
|
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Radiation Biology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
1. Ryu S, Pugh SL, Gerszten PC, Yin FF, Timmerman RD, Hitchcock YJ, et al. (2014) RTOG 0631 phase 2/3 study of image guided stereotactic radiosurgery for localized (1-3) spine metastases: phase 2 results. Practical Radiation Oncology, 4(2): 76-81. [ DOI:10.1016/j.prro.2013.05.001] [ ] 2. Husain ZA, Sahgal A, De Salles A, Funaro M, Glover J, Hayashi M, et al. (2017) Stereotactic body radiotherapy for de novo spinal metastases: systematic review. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 27(3): 295-302. [ DOI:10.3171/2017.1.SPINE16684] [ PMID] 3. Aljabab S, Vellayappan B, Vandervoort E, Bahm J, Zohr R, Sinclair J, et al. (2018) Comparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 19(2): 160-167. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.12271] [ PMID] [ ] 4. Jabbari S, Gerszten PC, Ruschin M, Larson DA, Lo SS, Sahgal A (2016) Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: Practice Guidelines, Outcomes, and Risks. Cancer Journal (Sudbury, Mass.), 22(4): 280-289. [ DOI:10.1097/PPO.0000000000000205] [ PMID] 5. Cox BW, Spratt DE, Lovelock M, Bilsky MH, Lis E, Ryu S, Sheehan J, et al. (2012) International spine radiosurgery consortium consensus guidelines for target volume definition in spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 83(5): e597-e605. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.009] [ PMID] 6. Sahgal A, Weinberg V, Ma L, Chang E, Chao S, Muacevic A, et al. (2013) Probabilities of radiation myelopathy specific to stereotactic body radiation therapy to guide safe practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 85(2): 341-347. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.05.007] [ PMID] 7. Hodapp N (2012) The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol, 188(1): 97-99. [ DOI:10.1007/s00066-011-0015-x] [ PMID] 8. Hanna G, Murray L, Patel R, Jain S, Aitken KL, Franks KN, et al. (2018) UK consensus on normal tissue dose constraints for stereotactic radiotherapy. Royal College of Radiologists, Great Britain. Clinical Oncology, 30(1): 5-14. [ DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2017.09.007] [ PMID] 9. Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W, Kavanagh B, et al. (2010) Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. Medical Physics, 37(8): 4078-4101. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3438081] [ PMID] 10. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, Martin L (1993) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 27(5): 1231-1239. [ DOI:10.1016/0360-3016(93)90548-A] 11. Nakamura JL, Verhey LJ, Smith V, Petti PL, Lamborn KR, Larson DA, et al. (2001) Dose conformity of gamma knife radiosurgery and risk factors for complications Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 51(5): 1313-1319. [ DOI:10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01757-6] [ PMID] 12. Ma L, Sahgal A, Cozzi L, Chang E, Shiu A, Letourneau D, et al. (2010) Apparatus-dependent dosimetric differences in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, 9(6): 563-574. [ DOI:10.1177/153303461000900604] [ PMID] 13. Nalichowski A, Kaufman I, Gallo J, Bossenberger T, Solberg T, Ramirez E, et al. (2017) Single fraction radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastasis: A dosimetric comparison of multiple delivery platforms. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 18(1): 164-169. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.12022] [ PMID] [ ] 14. Yang J, Ma L, Wang XS, Xu WX, Cong XH, Xu SP, Ju ZJ, Du L, Cai BN, Yang J (2016) Dosimetric evaluation of 4 different treatment modalities for curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy for isolated thoracic spinal metastases. Medical dosimetry: Official Journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, 41(2): 105-112. [ DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2015.10.003] [ PMID] 15. Gallo JJ, Kaufman I, Powell R, Pandya S, Somnay A, Bossenberger T, et al. (2015) Single-fraction spine SBRT end-to-end testing on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam, and CyberKnife treatment platforms using a novel anthropomorphic phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 16(1): 5120. [ DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5120] [ PMID] [ ] |
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
Isık N, Algül E, Yaprak G, Özen A. Comparison of lumbar spine metastasis plans involving different stereotactic radiotherapy devices. Int J Radiat Res 2022; 20 (3) :531-535 URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4321-en.html
|
