A multi-centre stereotactic radiosurgery planning study of multiple brain metastases using isocentric linear accelerators with 5 and 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimators, CyberKnife and Gamma Knife.

BJR open Pub Date : 2024-01-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/bjro/tzae003
Scott Hanvey, Philippa Hackett, Lucy Winch, Elizabeth Lim, Robin Laney, Liam Welsh
{"title":"A multi-centre stereotactic radiosurgery planning study of multiple brain metastases using isocentric linear accelerators with 5 and 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimators, CyberKnife and Gamma Knife.","authors":"Scott Hanvey, Philippa Hackett, Lucy Winch, Elizabeth Lim, Robin Laney, Liam Welsh","doi":"10.1093/bjro/tzae003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compared plans of high definition (HD), 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimator (MLC), to standard, 5 mm width, isocentric linear accelerator (linacs), CyberKnife (CK), and Gamma Knife (GK) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) techniques on multiple brain metastases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven patients undergoing SRS for multiple brain metastases were chosen. Targets and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated and optimized SRS plans were generated and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The linacs delivered similar conformity index (CI) values, but the gradient index (GI) for HD MLCs was significantly lower (<i>P</i>-value <.001). Half the OARs received significantly lower dose using HD MLCs. CK delivered a significantly lower CI than HD MLC linac (<i>P</i>-value <.001), but a significantly higher GI (<i>P</i>-value <.001). CI was significantly improved with the HD MLC linac compared to GK (<i>P</i>-value = 4.591 × 10<sup>-3</sup>), however, GK delivered a significantly lower GI (<i>P</i>-value <.001). OAR dose sparing was similar for the HD MLC TL, CK, and GK.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing linacs for SRS, the preferred choice is HD MLCs. Similar results were achieved with the HD MLC linac, CK, or GK, with each delivering significant improvements in different aspects of plan quality.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>This article is the first to compare HD and standard width MLC linac plans using a combination of single isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy and multi-isocentric dynamic conformal arc plans as required, which is a more clinically relevant assessment. Furthermore, it compares these plans with CK and GK, assessing the relative merits of each technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10873585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjro/tzae003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared plans of high definition (HD), 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimator (MLC), to standard, 5 mm width, isocentric linear accelerator (linacs), CyberKnife (CK), and Gamma Knife (GK) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) techniques on multiple brain metastases.

Methods: Eleven patients undergoing SRS for multiple brain metastases were chosen. Targets and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated and optimized SRS plans were generated and compared.

Results: The linacs delivered similar conformity index (CI) values, but the gradient index (GI) for HD MLCs was significantly lower (P-value <.001). Half the OARs received significantly lower dose using HD MLCs. CK delivered a significantly lower CI than HD MLC linac (P-value <.001), but a significantly higher GI (P-value <.001). CI was significantly improved with the HD MLC linac compared to GK (P-value = 4.591 × 10-3), however, GK delivered a significantly lower GI (P-value <.001). OAR dose sparing was similar for the HD MLC TL, CK, and GK.

Conclusions: Comparing linacs for SRS, the preferred choice is HD MLCs. Similar results were achieved with the HD MLC linac, CK, or GK, with each delivering significant improvements in different aspects of plan quality.

Advances in knowledge: This article is the first to compare HD and standard width MLC linac plans using a combination of single isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy and multi-isocentric dynamic conformal arc plans as required, which is a more clinically relevant assessment. Furthermore, it compares these plans with CK and GK, assessing the relative merits of each technique.

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
一项多中心立体定向放射外科规划研究,使用带有 5 毫米和 2.5 毫米宽多叶准直器的等中心直线加速器、CyberKnife 和伽玛刀对多发性脑转移瘤进行治疗。
研究目的:本研究比较了高清(HD)、2.5 毫米宽多叶准直器(MLC)与标准、5 毫米宽等中心直线加速器(linacs)、CyberKnife(CK)和伽玛刀(GK)用于多发性脑转移瘤立体定向放射外科(SRS)技术的方案:方法:选择了11名因多发性脑转移而接受SRS治疗的患者。方法:选择 11 名因多发性脑转移接受 SRS 治疗的患者,划定靶点和危险器官(OAR),并生成和比较优化的 SRS 计划:结果:直列加速器提供了相似的符合性指数(CI)值,但HD MLCs的梯度指数(GI)显著较低(P值 P值 P值 P值 P值 P值 = 4.591 × 10-3),然而GK提供的GI显著较低(P值 结论:在SRS治疗中比较直列加速器是非常重要的:比较用于 SRS 的线加速器,首选是高清 MLC。使用 HD MLC 直列加速器、CK 或 GK 都能获得类似的结果,每种方法都能显著改善计划质量的不同方面:这篇文章首次比较了高清和标准宽度MLC直列加速器计划,根据需要结合使用了单等中心容积调制弧治疗和多等中心动态适形弧计划,这是更贴近临床的评估。此外,它还将这些计划与 CK 和 GK 进行了比较,评估了每种技术的相对优点。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Three-dimensional dose prediction based on deep convolutional neural networks for brain cancer in CyberKnife: accurate beam modelling of homogeneous tissue. Advancing radiology practice and research: harnessing the potential of large language models amidst imperfections. Improvement in paediatric CT use and justification: a single-centre experience. Deuterium MR spectroscopy: potential applications in oncology research. Unlocking the potential of photon counting detector CT for paediatric imaging: a pictorial essay.
×
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