Dose distributions of high-precision radiotherapy treatment: A comparison between the CyberKnife and TrueBeam systems

Q4 Health Professions
Makoto Ito, T. Kawamura, Y. Mori, Toshie Mori, A. Takeuchi, Y. Oshima, Kazuhiko Nakamura, T. Aoyama, N. Kaneda, T. Ishiguchi, S. Mizumatsu
{"title":"Dose distributions of high-precision radiotherapy treatment: A comparison between the CyberKnife and TrueBeam systems","authors":"Makoto Ito, T. Kawamura, Y. Mori, Toshie Mori, A. Takeuchi, Y. Oshima, Kazuhiko Nakamura, T. Aoyama, N. Kaneda, T. Ishiguchi, S. Mizumatsu","doi":"10.18869/ACADPUB.IJRR.16.4.395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Several high-precision stereotactic radiation therapy modalities are currently used in clinical settings. We aimed to evaluate whether the CyberKnife (CK) or TrueBeam (TB) radiation treatment systems were more appropriate for treating targets of various morphologies according to the physical properties of each device. Materials and Methods: Spheres (diameter = 5–50 mm), as well as triangular prisms and cubes (length of a side = 10–50 mm), were used as virtual targets for each treatment delivery system. A phantom with dosimetry film was irradiated to evaluate the flatness and gradient of the radiation treatment from each modality. Results: The homogeneity index (HI) for the spherical targets was significantly higher (dose distribution was more homogeneous) using the TB than when using the CK (1.9 vs. 1.4; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between treatment modalities in the HI for more complex shapes. The HI increased monotonically as the virtual target diameter increased for the CK (p = 0.048). The flatness parameter was lower for the TB than for the CK (1.4 vs. 1.1; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The CK is particularly robust for delivering therapeutic radiation to small targets, while the TB is more suitable for targets with a simple shape or when the HI is a critical treatment factor.","PeriodicalId":14498,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Radiation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Radiation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18869/ACADPUB.IJRR.16.4.395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Several high-precision stereotactic radiation therapy modalities are currently used in clinical settings. We aimed to evaluate whether the CyberKnife (CK) or TrueBeam (TB) radiation treatment systems were more appropriate for treating targets of various morphologies according to the physical properties of each device. Materials and Methods: Spheres (diameter = 5–50 mm), as well as triangular prisms and cubes (length of a side = 10–50 mm), were used as virtual targets for each treatment delivery system. A phantom with dosimetry film was irradiated to evaluate the flatness and gradient of the radiation treatment from each modality. Results: The homogeneity index (HI) for the spherical targets was significantly higher (dose distribution was more homogeneous) using the TB than when using the CK (1.9 vs. 1.4; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between treatment modalities in the HI for more complex shapes. The HI increased monotonically as the virtual target diameter increased for the CK (p = 0.048). The flatness parameter was lower for the TB than for the CK (1.4 vs. 1.1; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The CK is particularly robust for delivering therapeutic radiation to small targets, while the TB is more suitable for targets with a simple shape or when the HI is a critical treatment factor.
高精度放射治疗的剂量分布:CyberKnife和TrueBeam系统的比较
背景:目前临床上使用了几种高精度立体定向放射治疗模式。我们旨在根据每个设备的物理特性,评估CyberKnife(CK)或TrueBeam(TB)辐射治疗系统是否更适合治疗各种形态的目标。材料和方法:球体(直径=5-50 mm)、三角棱柱和立方体(边长=10-50 mm)被用作每个治疗递送系统的虚拟靶点。对具有剂量测定膜的体模进行照射,以评估每种模式的辐射治疗的平坦度和梯度。结果:使用TB的球形靶标的均匀性指数(HI)显著高于使用CK的球形靶标(1.9对1.4;p=0.002)。对于更复杂的形状,HI的治疗方式之间没有显著差异。CK的HI随着虚拟靶直径的增加而单调增加(p=0.048)。TB的平坦度参数低于CK(1.4对1.1;p<0.001)。结论:CK在向小靶点输送治疗性辐射方面特别稳健,而TB更适合形状简单的靶点或当HI是关键治疗因素时。
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
Iranian Journal of Radiation Research
Iranian Journal of Radiation Research RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.67
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Iranian Journal of Radiation Research (IJRR) publishes original scientific research and clinical investigations related to radiation oncology, radiation biology, and Medical and health physics. The clinical studies submitted for publication include experimental studies of combined modality treatment, especially chemoradiotherapy approaches, and relevant innovations in hyperthermia, brachytherapy, high LET irradiation, nuclear medicine, dosimetry, tumor imaging, radiation treatment planning, radiosensitizers, and radioprotectors. All manuscripts must pass stringent peer-review and only papers that are rated of high scientific quality are accepted.
×
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