Dosimetric comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery to intensity modulated radiotherapy.

B A Kramer, D E Wazer, M J Engler, J S Tsai, M N Ling
{"title":"Dosimetric comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery to intensity modulated radiotherapy.","authors":"B A Kramer,&nbsp;D E Wazer,&nbsp;M J Engler,&nbsp;J S Tsai,&nbsp;M N Ling","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1998)6:1<18::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-L","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the dosimetry achievable with an intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMR) system to that of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for an irregularly shaped moderate size target. A treatment plan was selected from 109 single fraction SRS cases having had multiple non-coplanar arc therapy using a 6 MV linear accelerator fitted with circular tertiary collimators 1.00 to 4.00 cm in diameter at isocenter. The CT scan with delineated regions of interest was then entered into an IMR treatment planning system and optimized dose distributions, using a back projection technique for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery, were generated with a stimulated annealing algorithm. Dose volume histograms (DVH), homogeneity indices (HI), conformity indices (CI), minimum and maximum doses to surrounding highly sensitive intracranial structures, as well as the volume of tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose from the IMR plan were then compared to those from the single isocenter SRS plan used and a hypothetical three isocenter SRS plan. For an irregularly shaped target, the IMR plan produced a HI of 1.08 and CI of 1.50 compared to 1.75 and 4.41, respectively, for the single isocenter SRS plan (SRS1) and 3.33 and 3.43 for the triple isocenter SRS plan (SRS3). The maximum and minimum doses to surrounding critical structures were less with the IMR plan in comparison to both SRS plans. However, the volume of non-target tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose with the IMR plan was 137, 170, and 163%, respectively, of that treated with the SRS1 plan and 85, 100, and 123% of the volume when compared to SRS3 plan. The IMR system provided more conformal target doses than were provided by the single isocenter or three isocenter SRS plans. IMR delivered less dose to critical normal tissues and provided increased homogeneity within the target volume for a moderate size irregularly shaped target, at the cost of a larger penumbra.</p>","PeriodicalId":20894,"journal":{"name":"Radiation oncology investigations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1998)6:1<18::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-L","citationCount":"49","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation oncology investigations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1998)6:1<18::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-L","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

Abstract

To compare the dosimetry achievable with an intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMR) system to that of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for an irregularly shaped moderate size target. A treatment plan was selected from 109 single fraction SRS cases having had multiple non-coplanar arc therapy using a 6 MV linear accelerator fitted with circular tertiary collimators 1.00 to 4.00 cm in diameter at isocenter. The CT scan with delineated regions of interest was then entered into an IMR treatment planning system and optimized dose distributions, using a back projection technique for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery, were generated with a stimulated annealing algorithm. Dose volume histograms (DVH), homogeneity indices (HI), conformity indices (CI), minimum and maximum doses to surrounding highly sensitive intracranial structures, as well as the volume of tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose from the IMR plan were then compared to those from the single isocenter SRS plan used and a hypothetical three isocenter SRS plan. For an irregularly shaped target, the IMR plan produced a HI of 1.08 and CI of 1.50 compared to 1.75 and 4.41, respectively, for the single isocenter SRS plan (SRS1) and 3.33 and 3.43 for the triple isocenter SRS plan (SRS3). The maximum and minimum doses to surrounding critical structures were less with the IMR plan in comparison to both SRS plans. However, the volume of non-target tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose with the IMR plan was 137, 170, and 163%, respectively, of that treated with the SRS1 plan and 85, 100, and 123% of the volume when compared to SRS3 plan. The IMR system provided more conformal target doses than were provided by the single isocenter or three isocenter SRS plans. IMR delivered less dose to critical normal tissues and provided increased homogeneity within the target volume for a moderate size irregularly shaped target, at the cost of a larger penumbra.

立体定向放射外科与调强放疗的剂量学比较。
比较强度调制放射治疗(IMR)系统与立体定向放射手术(SRS)对不规则形状中等大小靶的剂量测定。从109例单分数SRS患者中选择一种治疗方案,使用6 MV直线加速器,在等中心安装直径为1.00至4.00 cm的圆形三级准直器,进行多次非共面电弧治疗。然后将CT扫描图像与划定的感兴趣区域输入到IMR治疗计划系统中,并使用动态多叶准直器传递的反向投影技术,通过受激退火算法生成优化的剂量分布。然后将剂量体积直方图(DVH)、均匀性指数(HI)、符合性指数(CI)、对周围高敏感颅内结构的最小和最大剂量,以及IMR计划治疗的组织体积>处方剂量的80%、50%和20%,与使用的单等中心SRS计划和假设的三等中心SRS计划进行比较。对于不规则形状的目标,IMR计划产生的HI为1.08,CI为1.50,而单等中心SRS计划(SRS1)和三等中心SRS计划(SRS3)分别为1.75和4.41和3.33和3.43。与两种SRS计划相比,IMR计划对周围关键结构的最大和最小剂量较小。然而,与SRS3计划相比,IMR计划治疗到处方剂量> 80,50和20%的非靶组织体积分别为SRS1计划治疗体积的137%,170和163%,85,100和123%。与单一等中心或三个等中心SRS计划相比,IMR系统提供了更适形的靶剂量。对于中等大小的不规则形状靶,IMR给关键正常组织的剂量更少,靶体积内的均匀性更高,但代价是更大的半影。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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