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。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Radiology and Oncology Pub Date : 2025-06-21 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.2478/raon-2025-0039
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:闪电®软件,被添加到伽玛刀的Leksell GammaPlan®作为一个全自动逆规划器,不同于以前的软件,向导®。本文比较了它们的治疗计划能力和质量。材料与方法:采用四种不同的规划技术对38例患者进行比较。首先,在Wizard®优化工具的帮助下进行手动向前规划。第二,使用Wizard®进行逆向规划。第三和第四种方案使用Lightning®,考虑或不考虑器官风险(OAR)。对它们进行分析:计划时间、注射次数、覆盖率、选择性、梯度指数、开始时间和桨叶剂量。由于他们的特质,增加了基于病理的比较。为了进行质量比较,将剂量-体积直方图(DVH)与根据我们的治疗标准制定的计划进行比较。肿瘤体积和计划时间与Pearson系数相关。结果:Lightning®具有更好的覆盖率(8%)和梯度指数(15%),但选择性降低了12%。计划和交付时间分别减少了57%和5%,尽管注射次数是原来的三倍。在所有计划中,只有具有OAR保护的Lightning®符合剂量限制。DVH表现出类似的计划品质。结论:Lightning®允许计划者探索不同的优化参数,以实现适合手头临床问题的计划。它花了更少的时间来计算射击位置,桨保护和理想的等剂量线比向导®。这有助于在更快的时间内规划多个和复杂的靶标,增加患者的耐受性,并且可能通过影响碎片内修复而具有放射生物学优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

In the pursuit of perfect planning: comparison between Lightning Inverse Planning and GammaPlan Wizard for gamma knife radiosurgery.

In the pursuit of perfect planning: comparison between Lightning Inverse Planning and GammaPlan Wizard for gamma knife radiosurgery.

In the pursuit of perfect planning: comparison between Lightning Inverse Planning and GammaPlan Wizard for gamma knife radiosurgery.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiology and Oncology
Radiology and Oncology ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信