BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy have become widespread techniques applied to the treatment of a variety of intracranial lesions. Rapid evolution of new technologies has now enabled clinicians to treat tumors outside the cranium and down the spinal axis. This review compares 3 commercially available systems in widespread use throughout the world. METHODS: Literature review and interviews with practitioners in the United States were performed to establish data for a comparative analysis of the Gamma Knife (Elekta, Sweden), Novalis (BrainLabs, Germany), and CyberKnife systems (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA). Cost analyses were deliberately excluded because of the need for detailed cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the review. RESULTS: An unbiased comparative analysis was not possible because of the lack of objective data from a standard metric for these systems. Despite this shortcoming, disparate features of each system were compared and contrasted. CONCLUSION: A careful assessment of each system, including its operational features, capabilities, and yearly capacity must be weighed against the composition of the radiosurgery team, the case mix of the practice, and the objectives of the clinical unit to yield the best fit.
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy have become widespread techniques applied to the treatment of a variety of intracranial lesions. Rapid evolution of new technologies has now enabled clinicians to treat tumors outside the cranium and down the spinal axis. This review compares 3 commercially available systems in widespread use throughout the world. METHODS: Literature review and interviews with practitioners in the United States were performed to establish data for a comparative analysis of the Gamma Knife (Elekta, Sweden), Novalis (BrainLabs, Germany), and CyberKnife systems (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA). Cost analyses were deliberately excluded because of the need for detailed cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the review. RESULTS: An unbiased comparative analysis was not possible because of the lack of objective data from a standard metric for these systems. Despite this shortcoming, disparate features of each system were compared and contrasted. CONCLUSION: A careful assessment of each system, including its operational features, capabilities, and yearly capacity must be weighed against the composition of the radiosurgery team, the case mix of the practice, and the objectives of the clinical unit to yield the best fit.
Authors: Alexis Dimitriadis; Antony L Palmer; Russell A S Thomas; Andrew Nisbet; Catharine H Clark Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Amit Sawant; Raghu Venkat; Vikram Srivastava; David Carlson; Sergey Povzner; Herb Cattell; Paul Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wolfgang Birkfellner; Markus Stock; Michael Figl; Christelle Gendrin; Johann Hummel; Shuo Dong; Joachim Kettenbach; Dietmar Georg; Helmar Bergmann Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.071