The Optimal Choice of Technique for Stereotactic Radiosurgery—A LINAC-Based Dosimetric Study between DCA, DCA-SSO, DCA-SSO-VDR, and VMAT

Ramya Venugopal, S. S., R. Tiwari, G. Narayanan, B. Vishwanathan
{"title":"The Optimal Choice of Technique for Stereotactic Radiosurgery—A LINAC-Based Dosimetric Study between DCA, DCA-SSO, DCA-SSO-VDR, and VMAT","authors":"Ramya Venugopal, S. S., R. Tiwari, G. Narayanan, B. Vishwanathan","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1751117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Introduction Advanced radiation therapy delivery techniques require greater understanding of various planning sequences and methods. The aim of this study is to determine a class solution that finds the best possible technique to deliver for stereotactic radiosurgery between dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using various options such as DCA, DCA + SSO (segment shape optimization), and DCA + SSO + VDR (variable dose rate) using noncoplanar beam arrangement and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using coplanar beams.\n Materials and Methods In this dosimetric study, 11 brain cases were retrospectively planned for various techniques and analyzed for the Paddick conformity index (CI), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group homogeneity index (HI), Paddick gradient index (GI), treatment time in terms of monitor units (MU) and normal brain dose (V12Gy). The paired t-test was performed to know the statistical significance between the techniques.\n Results In terms of CI, GI, and control of the normal brain dose, the VMAT plan was superior to other techniques. But, HI was found to be better with DCA. Above all, VMAT delivered higher MU than any other technique. The p-values between DCA + SSO and DCA, DCA + SSO + VDR and DCA + SSO, and VMAT and DCA + SSO + VDR are as follows: CI: 0.0004, 0.015, and 0.03; GI: 0.03, 0.33, and 0.29; HI: 0.008, 0.04, and 0.06; V12 Gy of normal brain: 0.1, 0.01, 0.38. VMAT requires approximately 41 ± 17% more MU than DCA + SSO + VDR.\n Conclusion VMAT using coplanar beams is preferable among all the techniques, considering the dosimetric parameters studied. If VMAT is not available in the facility, DCA + SSO + VDR technique using non coplanar beams can be used to deliver SRS treatment.","PeriodicalId":31357,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1751117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Advanced radiation therapy delivery techniques require greater understanding of various planning sequences and methods. The aim of this study is to determine a class solution that finds the best possible technique to deliver for stereotactic radiosurgery between dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using various options such as DCA, DCA + SSO (segment shape optimization), and DCA + SSO + VDR (variable dose rate) using noncoplanar beam arrangement and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using coplanar beams. Materials and Methods In this dosimetric study, 11 brain cases were retrospectively planned for various techniques and analyzed for the Paddick conformity index (CI), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group homogeneity index (HI), Paddick gradient index (GI), treatment time in terms of monitor units (MU) and normal brain dose (V12Gy). The paired t-test was performed to know the statistical significance between the techniques. Results In terms of CI, GI, and control of the normal brain dose, the VMAT plan was superior to other techniques. But, HI was found to be better with DCA. Above all, VMAT delivered higher MU than any other technique. The p-values between DCA + SSO and DCA, DCA + SSO + VDR and DCA + SSO, and VMAT and DCA + SSO + VDR are as follows: CI: 0.0004, 0.015, and 0.03; GI: 0.03, 0.33, and 0.29; HI: 0.008, 0.04, and 0.06; V12 Gy of normal brain: 0.1, 0.01, 0.38. VMAT requires approximately 41 ± 17% more MU than DCA + SSO + VDR. Conclusion VMAT using coplanar beams is preferable among all the techniques, considering the dosimetric parameters studied. If VMAT is not available in the facility, DCA + SSO + VDR technique using non coplanar beams can be used to deliver SRS treatment.
立体定向放射外科技术的最佳选择——基于LINAC的DCA、DCA-SSO、DCA-SSO-VDR和VMAT剂量测定研究
介绍 先进的放射治疗递送技术需要对各种计划序列和方法有更深入的了解。本研究的目的是确定一种类别的解决方案,在使用各种选项(如DCA、DCA)的动态共形弧(DCA)技术之间找到最佳的立体定向放射外科技术 + SSO(分段形状优化)和DCA + SSO + 使用非平面束布置的VDR(可变剂量率)和使用共面束的体积调制电弧治疗(VMAT)。材料和方法 在这项剂量测定研究中,对11例脑病例进行了各种技术的回顾性规划,并分析了帕迪克一致性指数(CI)、放射治疗肿瘤组同质性指数(HI)、帕迪克梯度指数(GI)、以监测单位(MU)和正常脑剂量(V12Gy)表示的治疗时间。进行配对t检验以了解两种技术之间的统计学显著性。后果 在CI、GI和正常脑剂量控制方面,VMAT计划优于其他技术。但是,HI被发现与DCA一起更好。最重要的是,VMAT提供了比任何其他技术都高的MU。DCA之间的p值 + SSO和DCA,DCA + SSO + VDR和DCA + SSO、VMAT和DCA + SSO + VDR如下:CI:0.004、0.015和0.03;GI:0.03、0.33和0.29;HI:0.008、0.04和0.06;正常脑V12Gy:0.1、0.01、0.38。VMAT需要大约41 ± MU比DCA多17% + SSO + VDR。结论 考虑到所研究的剂量测量参数,在所有技术中,使用共面光束的VMAT是优选的。如果VMAT在设施中不可用,DCA + SSO + 使用非共面波束的VDR技术可以用于提供SRS治疗。
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
43
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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