Victor Goulenko, Robert J Plunkett, Matthew B Podgorsak, Dheerendra Prasad
{"title":"追求完美的计划:闪电逆计划与伽玛刀放射外科伽玛刀计划向导的比较。","authors":"Victor Goulenko, Robert J Plunkett, Matthew B Podgorsak, Dheerendra Prasad","doi":"10.2478/raon-2025-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Lightning<sup>®</sup> software, was added to the Gamma Knife's Leksell GammaPlan<sup>®</sup> as a fully automated inverse planner, differently from the prior software, Wizard<sup>®</sup>. In this paper we compare their treatment planning capacity and quality.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty-eight cases were compared under four different planning techniques. First, manual forward planning aided by the Wizard<sup>®</sup> optimization tool. Second, inverse planning with Wizard<sup>®</sup>. The third and fourth plans used Lightning<sup>®</sup> with and without consideration for organs at risk (OAR). They were analysed for: planning time, number of shots, coverage, selectivity, gradient index, bean-on time, and OAR dose. Comparison based on pathology was added due to their idiosyncrasies. For quality comparison, dose-volume histograms (DVH) were compared to plans developed under our treatment standards. Tumor's volume and time to plan were correlated with Pearson's coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lightning<sup>®</sup> had better coverage (8%) and gradient index (15%) but had 12% decrease in selectivity. Planning and delivery times had a reduction of 57% and 5% respectively, despite having three times the number of shots. Only Lightning<sup>®</sup> with protection of OAR met the dose constrains in all plans. DVH showed similar plan qualities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lightning<sup>®</sup> allowed the planner to explore different optimization parameters to achieve a plan that suits the clinical problem at hand. It took less time to calculate shots placement, OAR protection and the ideal isodose line than the Wizard<sup>®</sup>. This can be useful to plan multiple and complex targets at a faster time, increase the patient's tolerance and, may have a radiobiological advantage by impacting intra-fraction repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":21034,"journal":{"name":"Radiology and Oncology","volume":"59 2","pages":"285-292"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12182950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the pursuit of perfect planning: comparison between Lightning Inverse Planning and GammaPlan Wizard for gamma knife radiosurgery.\",\"authors\":\"Victor Goulenko, Robert J Plunkett, Matthew B Podgorsak, Dheerendra Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/raon-2025-0039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Lightning<sup>®</sup> software, was added to the Gamma Knife's Leksell GammaPlan<sup>®</sup> as a fully automated inverse planner, differently from the prior software, Wizard<sup>®</sup>. In this paper we compare their treatment planning capacity and quality.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty-eight cases were compared under four different planning techniques. First, manual forward planning aided by the Wizard<sup>®</sup> optimization tool. Second, inverse planning with Wizard<sup>®</sup>. The third and fourth plans used Lightning<sup>®</sup> with and without consideration for organs at risk (OAR). They were analysed for: planning time, number of shots, coverage, selectivity, gradient index, bean-on time, and OAR dose. Comparison based on pathology was added due to their idiosyncrasies. For quality comparison, dose-volume histograms (DVH) were compared to plans developed under our treatment standards. Tumor's volume and time to plan were correlated with Pearson's coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lightning<sup>®</sup> had better coverage (8%) and gradient index (15%) but had 12% decrease in selectivity. Planning and delivery times had a reduction of 57% and 5% respectively, despite having three times the number of shots. Only Lightning<sup>®</sup> with protection of OAR met the dose constrains in all plans. DVH showed similar plan qualities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lightning<sup>®</sup> allowed the planner to explore different optimization parameters to achieve a plan that suits the clinical problem at hand. It took less time to calculate shots placement, OAR protection and the ideal isodose line than the Wizard<sup>®</sup>. This can be useful to plan multiple and complex targets at a faster time, increase the patient's tolerance and, may have a radiobiological advantage by impacting intra-fraction repair.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology and Oncology\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"285-292\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12182950/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology and Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2025-0039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2025-0039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
In the pursuit of perfect planning: comparison between Lightning Inverse Planning and GammaPlan Wizard for gamma knife radiosurgery.
Background: The Lightning® software, was added to the Gamma Knife's Leksell GammaPlan® as a fully automated inverse planner, differently from the prior software, Wizard®. In this paper we compare their treatment planning capacity and quality.
Materials and methods: Thirty-eight cases were compared under four different planning techniques. First, manual forward planning aided by the Wizard® optimization tool. Second, inverse planning with Wizard®. The third and fourth plans used Lightning® with and without consideration for organs at risk (OAR). They were analysed for: planning time, number of shots, coverage, selectivity, gradient index, bean-on time, and OAR dose. Comparison based on pathology was added due to their idiosyncrasies. For quality comparison, dose-volume histograms (DVH) were compared to plans developed under our treatment standards. Tumor's volume and time to plan were correlated with Pearson's coefficient.
Results: Lightning® had better coverage (8%) and gradient index (15%) but had 12% decrease in selectivity. Planning and delivery times had a reduction of 57% and 5% respectively, despite having three times the number of shots. Only Lightning® with protection of OAR met the dose constrains in all plans. DVH showed similar plan qualities.
Conclusions: Lightning® allowed the planner to explore different optimization parameters to achieve a plan that suits the clinical problem at hand. It took less time to calculate shots placement, OAR protection and the ideal isodose line than the Wizard®. This can be useful to plan multiple and complex targets at a faster time, increase the patient's tolerance and, may have a radiobiological advantage by impacting intra-fraction repair.
期刊介绍:
Radiology and Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal devoted to the publishing original and high quality scientific papers and review articles, pertinent to diagnostic and interventional radiology, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, clinical and experimental oncology, radiobiology, medical physics and radiation protection. Therefore, the scope of the journal is to cover beside radiology the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects in oncology, which distinguishes it from other journals in the field.