OBJECT: Treatment planning for Gamma Knife surgery has traditionally been a forward planning (FP)-only approach with results that depend significantly on the experience of the user. Leksell GammaPlan version 10.0, currently in beta testing, introduces a new inverse planning (IP) engine that may allow more reproducible results across dosimetrists and individual institutions. In this study the authors compared the FP and IP approaches to Gamma Knife surgery. METHODS: Forty-three patients with pituitary adenomas were evaluated after dose planning was performed using FP and IP treatment approaches. Treatment plans were compared for target coverage, target selectivity, Paddick gradient index, number of isocenters, optic pathways dose, and treatment time. Differences between the forward and inverse treatment plans were evaluated in a statistical fashion. RESULTS: The IP software generated a dose plan within approximately 10 minutes. The FP approach delivered the prescribed isodose to a larger treatment volume than the IP system (p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) FP and IP coverage indices were 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.85 ± 0.13, respectively (no significant difference). The mean FP and IP gradient indices were 2.78 ± 0.20 and 3.08 ± 0.37, respectively (p < 0.001). The number of isocenters did not appreciably differ between approaches. The maximum doses directed to the optic apparatus for the FP and IP methods were 8.67 ± 1.97 Gy and 12.33 ± 5.86 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Leksell GammaPlan IP system was easy to operate and provided a reasonable, first approximation dose plan. Particularly in cases in which there are eloquent structures at risk, experience and user-based optimization will be required to achieve an acceptable Gamma Knife dose plan.
OBJECT: Treatment planning for Gamma Knife surgery has traditionally been a forward planning (FP)-only approach with results that depend significantly on the experience of the user. Leksell GammaPlan version 10.0, currently in beta testing, introduces a new inverse planning (IP) engine that may allow more reproducible results across dosimetrists and individual institutions. In this study the authors compared the FP and IP approaches to Gamma Knife surgery. METHODS: Forty-three patients with pituitary adenomas were evaluated after dose planning was performed using FP and IP treatment approaches. Treatment plans were compared for target coverage, target selectivity, Paddick gradient index, number of isocenters, optic pathways dose, and treatment time. Differences between the forward and inverse treatment plans were evaluated in a statistical fashion. RESULTS: The IP software generated a dose plan within approximately 10 minutes. The FP approach delivered the prescribed isodose to a larger treatment volume than the IP system (p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) FP and IP coverage indices were 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.85 ± 0.13, respectively (no significant difference). The mean FP and IP gradient indices were 2.78 ± 0.20 and 3.08 ± 0.37, respectively (p < 0.001). The number of isocenters did not appreciably differ between approaches. The maximum doses directed to the optic apparatus for the FP and IP methods were 8.67 ± 1.97 Gy and 12.33 ± 5.86 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Leksell GammaPlan IP system was easy to operate and provided a reasonable, first approximation dose plan. Particularly in cases in which there are eloquent structures at risk, experience and user-based optimization will be required to achieve an acceptable Gamma Knife dose plan.
Authors: Marie Huss; Pierre Barsoum; Ernest Dodoo; Georges Sinclair; Iuliana Toma-Dasu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Damodar Pokhrel; Mark E Bernard; James Knight; William St Clair; Justin F Fraser Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 2.243