Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: Dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation

Yoshiko Oshiro , Masashi Mizumoto , Yuichi Kato , Yukihiro Tsuchida , Koji Tsuboi , Takeji Sakae , Hideyuki Sakurai
{"title":"Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: Dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation","authors":"Yoshiko Oshiro ,&nbsp;Masashi Mizumoto ,&nbsp;Yuichi Kato ,&nbsp;Yukihiro Tsuchida ,&nbsp;Koji Tsuboi ,&nbsp;Takeji Sakae ,&nbsp;Hideyuki Sakurai","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the dosimetric quality of automatic multiple brain metastases planning (MBM) with that of Cyberknife (CK) based on the clinical tumor condition, such as the tumor number, size, and location.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>76 treatment plans for 46 patients treated with CK were recalculated with the MBM treatment planning system. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), lesion underdosage volume factor (LUF), healthy tissue overdose volume factor (HTOF), geometric conformity index (g) and mean dose to normal organs were compared between CK and MBM for tumor number, size, shape and distance from the brainstem or chiasm.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The results showed that the mean brain dose was significantly smaller in MBM than CK. CI did not differ between MBM and CK; however, HI was significantly more ideal in CK (p = 0.000), and GI was significantly smaller in MBM (P = 0.000). LUF was larger in CK (p = 0.000) and HTOF and g was larger in MBM (p = 0.003, and 0.012). For single metastases, CK had significantly better HTOF (p = 0.000) and g (p = 0.002), but there were no differences for multiple tumors. Brain dose in MBM was significantly lower and CI was higher for tumors &lt; 30 mm (p = 0.000 and 0.000), whereas HTOF and g for tumors &lt; 10 mm were significantly smaller in CK (p = 0.041 and p = 0.016). Among oval tumors, brain dose, GI and LUF were smaller in MBM, but HTOF and g were smaller in CK. There were no particular trends for tumors close to the brainstem, but HTOF tended to be smaller in CK (0.03 vs. 0.29, p = 0.068) for tumors inside the brainstem.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>MBM can reduce the brain dose while achieving a dose distribution quality equivalent to that with CK.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000027/pdfft?md5=e64909107614f8627321cbab6c2de5a5&pid=1-s2.0-S2405632424000027-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric quality of automatic multiple brain metastases planning (MBM) with that of Cyberknife (CK) based on the clinical tumor condition, such as the tumor number, size, and location.

Methods

76 treatment plans for 46 patients treated with CK were recalculated with the MBM treatment planning system. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), lesion underdosage volume factor (LUF), healthy tissue overdose volume factor (HTOF), geometric conformity index (g) and mean dose to normal organs were compared between CK and MBM for tumor number, size, shape and distance from the brainstem or chiasm.

Results

The results showed that the mean brain dose was significantly smaller in MBM than CK. CI did not differ between MBM and CK; however, HI was significantly more ideal in CK (p = 0.000), and GI was significantly smaller in MBM (P = 0.000). LUF was larger in CK (p = 0.000) and HTOF and g was larger in MBM (p = 0.003, and 0.012). For single metastases, CK had significantly better HTOF (p = 0.000) and g (p = 0.002), but there were no differences for multiple tumors. Brain dose in MBM was significantly lower and CI was higher for tumors < 30 mm (p = 0.000 and 0.000), whereas HTOF and g for tumors < 10 mm were significantly smaller in CK (p = 0.041 and p = 0.016). Among oval tumors, brain dose, GI and LUF were smaller in MBM, but HTOF and g were smaller in CK. There were no particular trends for tumors close to the brainstem, but HTOF tended to be smaller in CK (0.03 vs. 0.29, p = 0.068) for tumors inside the brainstem.

Conclusions

MBM can reduce the brain dose while achieving a dose distribution quality equivalent to that with CK.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单等中心动态适形弧放射外科治疗脑转移瘤:与赛博刀的剂量学比较和临床研究
目的 根据肿瘤数量、大小和位置等临床肿瘤情况,比较多发性脑转移瘤自动计划(MBM)与赛博刀(CK)的剂量质量。比较了 CK 和 MBM 在肿瘤数量、大小、形状以及与脑干或脊柱的距离方面的一致性指数 (CI)、均匀性指数 (HI)、梯度指数 (GI)、病灶剂量不足体积因子 (LUF)、健康组织剂量过量体积因子 (HTOF)、几何一致性指数 (g) 和正常器官的平均剂量。MBM和CK的CI没有差异;但CK的HI明显更理想(P = 0.000),MBM的GI明显更小(P = 0.000)。CK的LUF较大(P = 0.000),MBM的HTOF和g较大(P = 0.003和0.012)。对于单发转移瘤,CK 的 HTOF(p = 0.000)和 g(p = 0.002)明显更好,但对于多发肿瘤则没有差异。对于 30 毫米以下的肿瘤,MBM 的脑剂量明显更低,CI 更高(p = 0.000 和 0.000),而对于 10 毫米以下的肿瘤,CK 的 HTOF 和 g 明显更小(p = 0.041 和 p = 0.016)。在椭圆形肿瘤中,MBM 的脑剂量、GI 和 LUF 较小,但 CK 的 HTOF 和 g 较小。靠近脑干的肿瘤没有特别的趋势,但脑干内肿瘤的 HTOF 在 CK 中往往较小(0.03 vs. 0.29,p = 0.068)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1