Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Toshihiro Suzuki, Masahide Saito, Ryutaro Nomura, Hikaru Nemoto, Naoto Yanagisawa, Ryuma Sawada, Zennosuke Mochizuki, Naoki Sano, Hiroshi Onishi, Hiroshi Takahashi
{"title":"Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.","authors":"Toshihiro Suzuki, Masahide Saito, Ryutaro Nomura, Hikaru Nemoto, Naoto Yanagisawa, Ryuma Sawada, Zennosuke Mochizuki, Naoki Sano, Hiroshi Onishi, Hiroshi Takahashi","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluates various radiotherapy techniques for treating metastatic brain tumor (BT), focusing on non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT), Helical TomoTherapy (HT), CyberKnife (CK), Gamma Knife (GK), and ZAP-X. CT images and structures of 12 patients who underwent CK for a single BT were utilized. Twelve treatment plans were created for each planning device. All plans adopted the approach of prescription doses to planning target volume D99.5%. They were divided into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (prescription dose; 21-23 Gy) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) (prescription dose; 30-36.5 Gy) groups and the same parameters evaluated included Gradient Index (GI), Paddick Conformity Index (CI), and treatment time (t-time). In the SRS group, mean values of GI and CI values were: NC-VMAT (4.28, 0.60), C-VMAT (5.61, 0.44), HT (4.68, 0.42), CK (4.31, 0.61), GK (2.81, 0.82), and ZAP-X (2.99, 0.80). In the SRT group: NC-VMAT (3.27, 0.84), C-VMAT (3.81, 0.82), HT (3.76, 0.65), CK (2.98, 0.77), GK (2.61, 0.90), and ZAP-X (2.80, 0.84). There were no significant differences in the mean values of CI and GI between ZAP-X and GK in both groups (p > 0.05). NC-VMAT and C-VMAT had shorter t-time than other techniques in both groups. ZAP-X is relatively superior in CI and GI for small tumors, similar to GK, while differences with NC-VMAT and CK diminish as tumor volume increases. ZAP-X, CK, and GK have longer t-time than other treatment techniques, regardless of volume.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70046"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70046","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluates various radiotherapy techniques for treating metastatic brain tumor (BT), focusing on non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT), Helical TomoTherapy (HT), CyberKnife (CK), Gamma Knife (GK), and ZAP-X. CT images and structures of 12 patients who underwent CK for a single BT were utilized. Twelve treatment plans were created for each planning device. All plans adopted the approach of prescription doses to planning target volume D99.5%. They were divided into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (prescription dose; 21-23 Gy) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) (prescription dose; 30-36.5 Gy) groups and the same parameters evaluated included Gradient Index (GI), Paddick Conformity Index (CI), and treatment time (t-time). In the SRS group, mean values of GI and CI values were: NC-VMAT (4.28, 0.60), C-VMAT (5.61, 0.44), HT (4.68, 0.42), CK (4.31, 0.61), GK (2.81, 0.82), and ZAP-X (2.99, 0.80). In the SRT group: NC-VMAT (3.27, 0.84), C-VMAT (3.81, 0.82), HT (3.76, 0.65), CK (2.98, 0.77), GK (2.61, 0.90), and ZAP-X (2.80, 0.84). There were no significant differences in the mean values of CI and GI between ZAP-X and GK in both groups (p > 0.05). NC-VMAT and C-VMAT had shorter t-time than other techniques in both groups. ZAP-X is relatively superior in CI and GI for small tumors, similar to GK, while differences with NC-VMAT and CK diminish as tumor volume increases. ZAP-X, CK, and GK have longer t-time than other treatment techniques, regardless of volume.

立体定向放疗治疗转移性脑肿瘤:VMAT、螺旋断层治疗、射波刀、伽玛刀和ZAP-X的剂量分布比较分析
本研究评估了治疗转移性脑肿瘤(BT)的各种放疗技术,重点是非共面体积调制电弧放疗(NC-VMAT)、共面体积调制电弧放疗(C-VMAT)、螺旋断层放疗(HT)、射波刀(CK)、伽玛刀(GK)和zak - x。我们利用了12例因单一BT而行CK的患者的CT图像和结构。为每个计划装置创建12个治疗方案。所有计划均采用处方剂量法,计划目标体积D99.5%。他们被分为立体定向放射外科(SRS)(处方剂量;21-23 Gy)和立体定向放疗(SRT)(处方剂量;30 ~ 36.5 Gy)组,其参数包括梯度指数(GI)、Paddick符合性指数(CI)和治疗时间(t-time)。SRS组GI、CI均值分别为:NC-VMAT(4.28, 0.60)、C-VMAT(5.61, 0.44)、HT(4.68, 0.42)、CK(4.31, 0.61)、GK(2.81, 0.82)、ZAP-X(2.99, 0.80)。SRT组:NC-VMAT(3.27, 0.84)、C-VMAT(3.81, 0.82)、HT(3.76, 0.65)、CK(2.98, 0.77)、GK(2.61, 0.90)、ZAP-X(2.80, 0.84)。ZAP-X与GK两组CI、GI均值比较差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组NC-VMAT和C-VMAT的t时间均短于其他技术。ZAP-X在小肿瘤的CI和GI方面相对优越,与GK相似,而与NC-VMAT和CK的差异随着肿瘤体积的增大而缩小。无论体积大小,ZAP-X、CK和GK的t-time都比其他处理技术长。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信