PURPOSE: Initial experience with delivering frameless stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) using volumetric intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivered with RapidArc is presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment details for 12 patients (14 targets) with a mean clinical target volume (CTV) of 12.8 ± 4.0 cm(3) were examined. Dosimetric indices for conformality, homogeneity, and dose gradient were calculated and compared with published results for other frameless, intracranial SRT techniques, including CyberKnife, TomoTherapy, and static-beam IMRT. Statistics on setup and treatment times and per patient dose validations were examined. RESULTS: Dose indices compared favorably with other techniques. Mean conformality, gradient, and homogeneity index values were 1.10 ± 0.11, 64.9 ± 14.1, 1.083 ± 0.026, respectively. Median treatment times were 4.8 ± 1.7 min. CONCLUSION: SRT using volumetric IMRT is a viable alternative to other techniques and enables short treatment times. This is anticipated to have a positive impact on radiobiological effect and for facilitating wider use of SRT.
PURPOSE: Initial experience with delivering frameless stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) using volumetric intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivered with RapidArc is presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment details for 12 patients (14 targets) with a mean clinical target volume (CTV) of 12.8 ± 4.0 cm(3) were examined. Dosimetric indices for conformality, homogeneity, and dose gradient were calculated and compared with published results for other frameless, intracranial SRT techniques, including CyberKnife, TomoTherapy, and static-beam IMRT. Statistics on setup and treatment times and per patient dose validations were examined. RESULTS: Dose indices compared favorably with other techniques. Mean conformality, gradient, and homogeneity index values were 1.10 ± 0.11, 64.9 ± 14.1, 1.083 ± 0.026, respectively. Median treatment times were 4.8 ± 1.7 min. CONCLUSION: SRT using volumetric IMRT is a viable alternative to other techniques and enables short treatment times. This is anticipated to have a positive impact on radiobiological effect and for facilitating wider use of SRT.
Authors: Steven K M Lau; Kaveh Zakeri; Xiao Zhao; Ruben Carmona; Erik Knipprath; Daniel R Simpson; Sameer K Nath; Gwe-Ya Kim; Parag Sanghvi; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth; Clark C Chen; Kevin T Murphy Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ravindra Yaparpalvi; Madhur K Garg; Jin Shen; William R Bodner; Dinesh K Mynampati; Aleiya Gafar; Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Amar K Basavatia; Nitin Ohri; Linda X Hong; Shalom Kalnicki; Wolfgang A Tome Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ganesh Narayanasamy; Sotirios Stathakis; Alonso N Gutierrez; Evangelos Pappas; Richard Crownover; John R Floyd; Niko Papanikolaou Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-09-09
Authors: J Rieber; E Tonndorf-Martini; O Schramm; B Rhein; S Stefanowicz; J Kappes; H Hoffmann; K Lindel; J Debus; S Rieken Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 3.621