OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment plans obtained with the CyberKnife (CK) (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) with those of other commonly used radiosurgical modalities, such as the gamma knife (GK), linear accelerator multiple arcs, conformally shaped static fields, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: An ellipsoidal simulated target was chosen centrally located in a three-dimensional model of a patient's head acquired with magnetic resonance or computed tomographic imaging. It was 25 mm in diameter and 35 mm long. The aims of treatment plans were 100% target volume coverage with an appropriate isodose line, minimum radiation dose to normal tissue, and clinically acceptable delivery. These plans were evaluated by use of a dose-volume histogram and other commonly used radiosurgical parameters such as target coverage, homogeneity index, and conformity index. RESULTS: All selected treatment modalities were equivalent in providing full target coverage. For dose homogeneity, all modalities except for multiple isocenter plans for GK (homogeneity index, 2.0) were similar (homogeneity index, congruent with 1.25). Dose conformity was essentially equivalent for all treatment plans except for IMRT, which had a slightly higher value (conformity index, congruent with 1.27). There was a substantial variation in the radiation dose to normal tissue between the studied modalities, particularly at the lower dose levels. CONCLUSION: CK plans seemed to be more flexible for a given target size and shape. For a target of limited volume and essentially of any shape, one could obtain similarly good conformal dosimetry with CK and GK. For a regular-shaped but other than spherical target, homogeneous dose distribution could be obtained with all selected modalities except for multiple isocenters, linear accelerator multiple arcs, or GK. Both IMRT and conformally shaped static fields offered good alternative treatment modalities to CK, GK, or linear accelerator multiple arc radiosurgery, with slightly inferior dosimetry in conformity (IMRT).
OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment plans obtained with the CyberKnife (CK) (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) with those of other commonly used radiosurgical modalities, such as the gamma knife (GK), linear accelerator multiple arcs, conformally shaped static fields, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: An ellipsoidal simulated target was chosen centrally located in a three-dimensional model of a patient's head acquired with magnetic resonance or computed tomographic imaging. It was 25 mm in diameter and 35 mm long. The aims of treatment plans were 100% target volume coverage with an appropriate isodose line, minimum radiation dose to normal tissue, and clinically acceptable delivery. These plans were evaluated by use of a dose-volume histogram and other commonly used radiosurgical parameters such as target coverage, homogeneity index, and conformity index. RESULTS: All selected treatment modalities were equivalent in providing full target coverage. For dose homogeneity, all modalities except for multiple isocenter plans for GK (homogeneity index, 2.0) were similar (homogeneity index, congruent with 1.25). Dose conformity was essentially equivalent for all treatment plans except for IMRT, which had a slightly higher value (conformity index, congruent with 1.27). There was a substantial variation in the radiation dose to normal tissue between the studied modalities, particularly at the lower dose levels. CONCLUSION: CK plans seemed to be more flexible for a given target size and shape. For a target of limited volume and essentially of any shape, one could obtain similarly good conformal dosimetry with CK and GK. For a regular-shaped but other than spherical target, homogeneous dose distribution could be obtained with all selected modalities except for multiple isocenters, linear accelerator multiple arcs, or GK. Both IMRT and conformally shaped static fields offered good alternative treatment modalities to CK, GK, or linear accelerator multiple arc radiosurgery, with slightly inferior dosimetry in conformity (IMRT).
Authors: Hossein Mahboubi; Ronald Sahyouni; Omid Moshtaghi; Kent Tadokoro; Yaser Ghavami; Kasra Ziai; Harrison W Lin; Hamid R Djalilian Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Harald Treuer; Moritz Hoevels; Klaus Luyken; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Jochen Wirths; Martin Kocher; Maximilian Ruge Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-11-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Alan T Villavicencio; Sigita Burneikiene; Pantaleo Romanelli; Laura Fariselli; Lee McNeely; John D Lipani; Steven D Chang; E Lee Nelson; Melinda McIntyre; Giovanni Broggi; John R Adler Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Sean P Collins; Nicholas D Coppa; Ying Zhang; Brian T Collins; Donald A McRae; Walter C Jean Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Terence T Sio; Sunyoung Jang; Sung-Woo Lee; Bruce Curran; Anil P Pyakuryal; Edward S Sternick Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 2.102