基于MLC和虹膜的治疗方案的剂量学和几何分析:射波刀治疗颅内肿瘤的回顾性研究。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-21 DOI:10.1177/15330338251388215
Jiaxin Wang, Bo Yang, Tingtian Pang, Zhiqun Wang, Yue Zhang, Xia Liu, Jie Qiu
{"title":"基于MLC和虹膜的治疗方案的剂量学和几何分析:射波刀治疗颅内肿瘤的回顾性研究。","authors":"Jiaxin Wang, Bo Yang, Tingtian Pang, Zhiqun Wang, Yue Zhang, Xia Liu, Jie Qiu","doi":"10.1177/15330338251388215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeIn our institute, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were performed by Cyberknife-S7 (CK-S7) which provided the selection of different collimators. This study aimed to compare critical plan qualities including conformality, high-dose area, dose fallout, and treatment efficiency between InCise™ multileaf collimator (MLC) based and Iris™ variable aperture collimators (Iris) based treatment plans.MethodsTwenty-five patients with intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7 were retrospectively analyzed. The Precision 3.3.0.0 with VOLO™ optimizer and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm was used for treatment planning. The new conformality index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), high-dose ratio (HDR) and distribution inside plan target volume (PTV), dose gradient distance (DGD) outside PTV, organs at risk (OARs) sparing, and treatment efficiency were compared between MLC based and Iris based plans.ResultsMLC plan achieved higher nCI, higher HDRs from 135% prescription dose (PD) to 110%PD and trended to form more centralized and gathered high-dose distribution inside PTV, while no statistical difference was found in HI. Iris possessed better dose-engraving ability around the target boundary especially when it close to OARs with strict dose constraints. MLC plan showed shorter DGD from 90%PD to 20%PD. MLC plan achieved less MUs (-67.14%), less nodes (-41.5%), less beams (-74.06%) and shorter treatment time (-51.64%). There were positive correlations between the effective radius of PTV (rPTV) and DGD from 90%PD to 10%PD both in MLC and Iris plans.ConclusionsMLC plan achieved comparable conformality, higher HDRs, more gathered high-dose distribution, faster dose fallout and more efficient treatment which proved it an excellent SRS/SRT choice for intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7. MLC might take an important advantage for the uncompliant and painful patients. However, Iris showed a better dose-engraving ability, it might be taken into consideration especially when the tumor was close to OARs with strict dose constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":22203,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","volume":"24 ","pages":"15330338251388215"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric and Geometric Analysis for MLC Based and Iris Based Treatment Plans: A Retrospective Study for Intracranial Tumors with Cyberknife Device.\",\"authors\":\"Jiaxin Wang, Bo Yang, Tingtian Pang, Zhiqun Wang, Yue Zhang, Xia Liu, Jie Qiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15330338251388215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>PurposeIn our institute, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were performed by Cyberknife-S7 (CK-S7) which provided the selection of different collimators. This study aimed to compare critical plan qualities including conformality, high-dose area, dose fallout, and treatment efficiency between InCise™ multileaf collimator (MLC) based and Iris™ variable aperture collimators (Iris) based treatment plans.MethodsTwenty-five patients with intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7 were retrospectively analyzed. The Precision 3.3.0.0 with VOLO™ optimizer and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm was used for treatment planning. The new conformality index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), high-dose ratio (HDR) and distribution inside plan target volume (PTV), dose gradient distance (DGD) outside PTV, organs at risk (OARs) sparing, and treatment efficiency were compared between MLC based and Iris based plans.ResultsMLC plan achieved higher nCI, higher HDRs from 135% prescription dose (PD) to 110%PD and trended to form more centralized and gathered high-dose distribution inside PTV, while no statistical difference was found in HI. Iris possessed better dose-engraving ability around the target boundary especially when it close to OARs with strict dose constraints. MLC plan showed shorter DGD from 90%PD to 20%PD. MLC plan achieved less MUs (-67.14%), less nodes (-41.5%), less beams (-74.06%) and shorter treatment time (-51.64%). There were positive correlations between the effective radius of PTV (rPTV) and DGD from 90%PD to 10%PD both in MLC and Iris plans.ConclusionsMLC plan achieved comparable conformality, higher HDRs, more gathered high-dose distribution, faster dose fallout and more efficient treatment which proved it an excellent SRS/SRT choice for intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7. MLC might take an important advantage for the uncompliant and painful patients. However, Iris showed a better dose-engraving ability, it might be taken into consideration especially when the tumor was close to OARs with strict dose constraints.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"15330338251388215\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338251388215\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338251388215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的采用射波刀- s7 (CK-S7)进行立体定向放射手术(SRS)和分步立体定向放射治疗(SRT),提供不同准直器的选择。本研究旨在比较基于InCise™多叶准直器(MLC)和基于Iris™可变孔径准直器(Iris)的治疗方案之间的关键计划质量,包括一致性、高剂量面积、剂量落差和治疗效率。方法对25例经CK-S7治疗的颅内肿瘤患者进行回顾性分析。采用Precision 3.3.0.0与VOLO™优化器和gpu加速蒙特卡罗剂量计算算法进行治疗计划。比较MLC和Iris两种方案的新适性指数(nCI)、均匀性指数(HI)、高剂量比(HDR)和计划内分布靶体积(PTV)、PTV外剂量梯度距离(DGD)、危险器官(OARs)保留以及治疗效率。结果smlc方案在135%处方剂量(PD)至110%处方剂量(PD)范围内nCI较高,hdr较高,且PTV内高剂量分布趋于集中聚集,HI无统计学差异。虹膜在目标边界附近具有较好的剂量雕刻能力,特别是在接近具有严格剂量约束的桨叶时。MLC计划显示较短的DGD从90%PD到20%PD。MLC方案实现了更少的MUs(-67.14%)、更少的nodes(-41.5%)、更少的beams(-74.06%)和更短的治疗时间(-51.64%)。在MLC和Iris方案中,PTV有效半径(rPTV)与DGD在90% ~ 10%PD范围内均呈正相关。结论smlc方案具有相当的一致性、更高的hdr、更集中的高剂量分布、更快的剂量沉降和更有效的治疗效果,是CK-S7治疗颅内肿瘤SRS/SRT的良好选择。MLC可能对不服从和疼痛的患者有重要的优势。而虹膜则表现出较好的剂量雕刻能力,尤其当肿瘤靠近桨叶且有严格的剂量限制时,值得考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dosimetric and Geometric Analysis for MLC Based and Iris Based Treatment Plans: A Retrospective Study for Intracranial Tumors with Cyberknife Device.

PurposeIn our institute, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were performed by Cyberknife-S7 (CK-S7) which provided the selection of different collimators. This study aimed to compare critical plan qualities including conformality, high-dose area, dose fallout, and treatment efficiency between InCise™ multileaf collimator (MLC) based and Iris™ variable aperture collimators (Iris) based treatment plans.MethodsTwenty-five patients with intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7 were retrospectively analyzed. The Precision 3.3.0.0 with VOLO™ optimizer and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm was used for treatment planning. The new conformality index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), high-dose ratio (HDR) and distribution inside plan target volume (PTV), dose gradient distance (DGD) outside PTV, organs at risk (OARs) sparing, and treatment efficiency were compared between MLC based and Iris based plans.ResultsMLC plan achieved higher nCI, higher HDRs from 135% prescription dose (PD) to 110%PD and trended to form more centralized and gathered high-dose distribution inside PTV, while no statistical difference was found in HI. Iris possessed better dose-engraving ability around the target boundary especially when it close to OARs with strict dose constraints. MLC plan showed shorter DGD from 90%PD to 20%PD. MLC plan achieved less MUs (-67.14%), less nodes (-41.5%), less beams (-74.06%) and shorter treatment time (-51.64%). There were positive correlations between the effective radius of PTV (rPTV) and DGD from 90%PD to 10%PD both in MLC and Iris plans.ConclusionsMLC plan achieved comparable conformality, higher HDRs, more gathered high-dose distribution, faster dose fallout and more efficient treatment which proved it an excellent SRS/SRT choice for intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7. MLC might take an important advantage for the uncompliant and painful patients. However, Iris showed a better dose-engraving ability, it might be taken into consideration especially when the tumor was close to OARs with strict dose constraints.

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (TCRT) is a JCR-ranked, broad-spectrum, open access, peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to provide researchers and clinicians with a platform to share and discuss developments in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of cancer.
×
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