BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery with an adapted linear accelerator (linac-SRS) is an established therapy option for brain metastases, benign brain tumors, and arteriovenous malformations. We intended to investigate whether the dosimetric quality of treatment plans achieved with a CyberKnife (CK) is at least equivalent to that for linac-SRS with circular or micromultileaf collimators (microMLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A random sample of 16 patients with 23 target volumes, previously treated with linac-SRS, was replanned with CK. Planning constraints were identical dose prescription and clinical applicability. In all cases uniform optimization scripts and inverse planning objectives were used. Plans were compared with respect to coverage, minimal dose within target volume, conformity index, and volume of brain tissue irradiated with ≥ 10 Gy. RESULTS: Generating the CK plan was unproblematic with simple optimization scripts in all cases. With the CK plans, coverage, minimal target volume dosage, and conformity index were significantly better, while no significant improvement could be shown regarding the 10 Gy volume. Multiobjective comparison for the irradiated target volumes was superior in the CK plan in 20 out of 23 cases and equivalent in 3 out of 23 cases. Multiobjective comparison for the treated patients was superior in the CK plan in all 16 cases. CONCLUSION: The results clearly demonstrate the superiority of the irradiation plan for CK compared to classical linac-SRS with circular collimators and microMLC. In particular, the average minimal target volume dose per patient, increased by 1.9 Gy, and at the same time a 14% better conformation index seems to be an improvement with clinical relevance.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery with an adapted linear accelerator (linac-SRS) is an established therapy option for brain metastases, benign brain tumors, and arteriovenous malformations. We intended to investigate whether the dosimetric quality of treatment plans achieved with a CyberKnife (CK) is at least equivalent to that for linac-SRS with circular or micromultileaf collimators (microMLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A random sample of 16 patients with 23 target volumes, previously treated with linac-SRS, was replanned with CK. Planning constraints were identical dose prescription and clinical applicability. In all cases uniform optimization scripts and inverse planning objectives were used. Plans were compared with respect to coverage, minimal dose within target volume, conformity index, and volume of brain tissue irradiated with ≥ 10 Gy. RESULTS: Generating the CK plan was unproblematic with simple optimization scripts in all cases. With the CK plans, coverage, minimal target volume dosage, and conformity index were significantly better, while no significant improvement could be shown regarding the 10 Gy volume. Multiobjective comparison for the irradiated target volumes was superior in the CK plan in 20 out of 23 cases and equivalent in 3 out of 23 cases. Multiobjective comparison for the treated patients was superior in the CK plan in all 16 cases. CONCLUSION: The results clearly demonstrate the superiority of the irradiation plan for CK compared to classical linac-SRS with circular collimators and microMLC. In particular, the average minimal target volume dose per patient, increased by 1.9 Gy, and at the same time a 14% better conformation index seems to be an improvement with clinical relevance.
Authors: J Voges; H Treuer; V Sturm; C Büchner; R Lehrke; M Kocher; S Staar; J Kuchta; R P Müller Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Harald Treuer; Martin Kocher; Moritz Hoevels; Stefan Hunsche; Klaus Luyken; Mohammad Maarouf; Jürgen Voges; Rolf-Peter Müller; Volker Sturm Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Debnarayan Dutta; S Balaji Subramanian; V Murli; H Sudahar; P G Gopalakrishna Kurup; Mahadev Potharaju Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-09-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Harald Treuer; Moritz Hoevels; Klaus Luyken; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Jochen Wirths; Martin Kocher; Maximilian Ruge Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Daniel Rueß; Fenja Fritsche; Stefan Grau; Harald Treuer; Mauritius Hoevels; Martin Kocher; Christian Baues; Maximilian I Ruge Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2019-03-12
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
Authors: Maria-Lisa Wilhelm; Mark K H Chan; Benedikt Abel; Florian Cremers; Frank-Andre Siebert; Stefan Wurster; David Krug; Robert Wolff; Jürgen Dunst; Guido Hildebrandt; Achim Schweikard; Dirk Rades; Floris Ernst; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.621