Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12271
Title: Comparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis
Authors: Aljabab, S
Vellayappan, B 
Vandervoort, E
Bahm, J
Zohr, R
Sinclair, J
Caudrelier, J.-M
Szanto, J
Malone, S
Keywords: aged
comparative study
female
human
intensity modulated radiation therapy
male
middle aged
organs at risk
procedures
prognosis
radiation response
radiometry
radiosurgery
radiotherapy dosage
radiotherapy planning system
retrospective study
spine tumor
very elderly
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Organs at Risk
Prognosis
Radiometry
Radiosurgery
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
Retrospective Studies
Spinal Neoplasms
Issue Date: 2018
Citation: Aljabab, S, Vellayappan, B, Vandervoort, E, Bahm, J, Zohr, R, Sinclair, J, Caudrelier, J.-M, Szanto, J, Malone, S (2018). Comparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 19 (2) : 160-167. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12271
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric differences between four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): CyberKnife (CK), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with dynamic jaws (HT-D) and fixed jaws (HT-F). Materials/methods: Data from 10 patients were utilized. All patients were planned for 24 Gy in two fractions, with the primary objectives being: (a) restricting the maximum dose to the cord to ? 17 Gy and/or cauda equina to ? 20 Gy, and (b) to maximize the clinical target volume (CTV) to receive the prescribed dose. Treatment plans were generated by separate dosimetrists and then compared using velocity AI. Parameters of comparison include target volume coverage, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), treatment time (TT) per fraction, and monitor units (MU) per fraction. Results: PTV D2 and D5 were significantly higher for CK compared to VMAT, HT-F, and HT-D (P < 0.001). The average volume of CTV receiving the prescription dose (CTV D95) was significantly less for VMAT compared to CK, HT-F and HT-D (P = 0.036). CI improved for CK (0.69), HT-F (0.66), and HT-D (0.67) compared to VMAT (0.52) (P = 0.013). CK (41.86) had the largest HI compared to VMAT (26.99), HT-F (20.69), and HT-D (21.17) (P < 0.001). GI was significantly less for CK (3.96) compared to VMAT (6.76) (P = 0.001). Likewise, CK (62.4 min, 14059 MU) had the longest treatment time and MU per fraction compared to VMAT (8.5 min, 9764 MU), HT-F (13 min, 10822 MU), and HT-D (13.5 min, 11418 MU) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both CK and HT plans achieved conformal target coverage while respecting cord tolerance. Dose heterogeneity was significantly larger in CK. VMAT required the least treatment time and MU output, but had the least steep GI, CI, and target coverage. © 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Source Title: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/181213
ISSN: 15269914
DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12271
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1002_acm2_12271.pdf259.01 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons