Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12271
DC FieldValue
dc.titleComparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis
dc.contributor.authorAljabab, S
dc.contributor.authorVellayappan, B
dc.contributor.authorVandervoort, E
dc.contributor.authorBahm, J
dc.contributor.authorZohr, R
dc.contributor.authorSinclair, J
dc.contributor.authorCaudrelier, J.-M
dc.contributor.authorSzanto, J
dc.contributor.authorMalone, S
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-27T10:13:31Z
dc.date.available2020-10-27T10:13:31Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationAljabab, 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
dc.identifier.issn15269914
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/181213
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceUnpaywall 20201031
dc.subjectaged
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectintensity modulated radiation therapy
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmiddle aged
dc.subjectorgans at risk
dc.subjectprocedures
dc.subjectprognosis
dc.subjectradiation response
dc.subjectradiometry
dc.subjectradiosurgery
dc.subjectradiotherapy dosage
dc.subjectradiotherapy planning system
dc.subjectretrospective study
dc.subjectspine tumor
dc.subjectvery elderly
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectOrgans at Risk
dc.subjectPrognosis
dc.subjectRadiometry
dc.subjectRadiosurgery
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Dosage
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
dc.subjectRetrospective Studies
dc.subjectSpinal Neoplasms
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentMEDICINE
dc.description.doi10.1002/acm2.12271
dc.description.sourcetitleJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
dc.description.volume19
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.page160-167
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple 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