Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X

被引:0
作者
Suzuki, Toshihiro [1 ]
Saito, Masahide [2 ]
Nomura, Ryutaro [3 ]
Nemoto, Hikaru [2 ]
Yanagisawa, Naoto [4 ]
Sawada, Ryuma [3 ]
Mochizuki, Zennosuke [1 ]
Sano, Naoki [2 ]
Onishi, Hiroshi [2 ]
Takahashi, Hiroshi [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Kasugai Gen Rehabil Hosp, CyberKnife Ctr, Yamanashi, Japan
[2] Univ Yamanashi, Dept Radiol, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 4093898, Japan
[3] Kamiyacho Neurosurg Clin, Dept Neurosurg, Tokyo, Japan
[4] Aizawa Hosp, Aizawa Comprehens Canc Ctr, Div Radiat Oncol, Nagano, Japan
[5] Kasugai Gen Rehabil Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Yamanashi, Japan
来源
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS | 2025年
关键词
CyberKnife; Gamma Knife; Helical TomoTherapy; metastatic brain tumor; VMAT; ZAP-X; RADIATION NECROSIS; RADIOSURGERY; CONFORMITY; VOLUME;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.70046
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
This study evaluates various radiotherapy techniques for treating metastatic brain tumor (BT), focusing on non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT), Helical TomoTherapy (HT), CyberKnife (CK), Gamma Knife (GK), and ZAP-X. CT images and structures of 12 patients who underwent CK for a single BT were utilized. Twelve treatment plans were created for each planning device. All plans adopted the approach of prescription doses to planning target volume D99.5%. They were divided into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (prescription dose; 21-23 Gy) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) (prescription dose; 30-36.5 Gy) groups and the same parameters evaluated included Gradient Index (GI), Paddick Conformity Index (CI), and treatment time (t-time). In the SRS group, mean values of GI and CI values were: NC-VMAT (4.28, 0.60), C-VMAT (5.61, 0.44), HT (4.68, 0.42), CK (4.31, 0.61), GK (2.81, 0.82), and ZAP-X (2.99, 0.80). In the SRT group: NC-VMAT (3.27, 0.84), C-VMAT (3.81, 0.82), HT (3.76, 0.65), CK (2.98, 0.77), GK (2.61, 0.90), and ZAP-X (2.80, 0.84). There were no significant differences in the mean values of CI and GI between ZAP-X and GK in both groups (p > 0.05). NC-VMAT and C-VMAT had shorter t-time than other techniques in both groups. ZAP-X is relatively superior in CI and GI for small tumors, similar to GK, while differences with NC-VMAT and CK diminish as tumor volume increases. ZAP-X, CK, and GK have longer t-time than other treatment techniques, regardless of volume.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [21] Agostinelli S., Garelli S., Gusinu M., Et al., Dosimetric analysis of Tomotherapy-based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery of brain metastasis, Phys Med, 52, pp. 48-55, (2018)
  • [22] Zhang S., Yang R., Shi C., Et al., Noncoplanar VMAT for brain metastases: a plan quality and delivery efficiency comparison with coplanar VMAT, IMRT, and CyberKnife, Technol Cancer Res Treat, 18, (2019)
  • [23] Muacevic A., Eder M.M., Hofmann T., Furweger C., Ehret F., Self-shielding gyroscopic radiosurgery-a first clinical experience, case series, and dosimetric comparison, World Neurosurg, 164, pp. e420-e426, (2022)
  • [24] Han E.Y., Wang H., Luo D., Li J., Wang X., Dosimetric comparison of fractionated radiosurgery plans using frameless Gamma Knife ICON and CyberKnife systems with linear accelerator-based radiosurgery plans for multiple large brain metastases, J Neurosurg, 132, 5, pp. 1473-1479, (2020)
  • [25] Sorensen S.P., Pinnaduwage D., Srivastava S., Et al., Profile comparisons of small dose volumes between three radiosurgery systems, Cureus, 11, 3, (2019)
  • [26] Adler J.R., Schweikard A., Achkire Y., Et al., Treatment planning for self-shielded radiosurgery, Cureus, 9, 9, (2017)
  • [27] Xu Y., Ma P., Xu Y., Dai J., Selection of prescription isodose line for brain metastases treated with volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy, J Appl Clin Med Phys, 20, 12, pp. 63-69, (2019)
  • [28] Dai Z., Yang C., Jiang W., Zhao M., Hu W., Ren H., The impact of normalization isodose line (NIDL) on dose distribution in intracranial tumors treated with CyberKnife, Mathews Journal of Cancer Science, 4, 2, pp. 1-6, (2019)
  • [29] Schuler E., Lo A., Chuang C.F., Soltys S.G., Pollom E.L., Wang L., Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife, J Appl Clin Med Phys, 21, 5, pp. 38-47, (2020)
  • [30] Thiele M., Galonske K., Ernst I., Comparison of two optimization algorithms (VOLOTM, SEQU) for CyberKnife® treatment of acoustic neuromas, lung metastases, and liver metastases, J Appl Clin Med Phys, 24, 12, (2023)