Alexis Dimitriadis1,2,3, Karen J Kirkby4,5, Andrew Nisbet1,2, Catharine H Clark2,3. 1. 1 Department of Physics, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. 2. 2 Department of Medical Physics, Royal County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK. 3. 3 Radiation Dosimetry Group, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK. 4. 4 Manchester Academic Science, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 5. 5 The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate and benchmark the current clinical and dosimetric practices in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the UK. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire was sent to 70 radiotherapy centres in the UK. 97% (68/70) of centres replied between June and December 2014. RESULTS: 21 centres stated that they are practising SRS, and a further 12 centres plan to start SRS by the end of 2016. The most commonly treated indications are brain metastases and acoustic neuromas. A large range of prescription isodoses that range from 45% to 100% between different radiotherapy centres was seen. Ionization chambers and solid-water phantoms are used by the majority of centres for patient-specific quality assurance, and thermoplastic masks for patient immobilization are more commonly used than fixed stereotactic frames. The majority of centres perform orthogonal kilovoltage X-rays for localization before and during delivery. The acceptable setup accuracy reported ranges from 0.1 to 2 mm with a mean of 0.8 mm. CONCLUSION: SRS has been increasing in use in the UK and will continue to increase in the next 2 years. There is no current consensus between SRS centres as a whole, or even between SRS centres with the same equipment, on the practices followed. This indicates the need for benchmarking and standardization in SRS practices within the UK. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article outlines the current practices in SRS and provides a benchmark for reference and comparison with future research in this technique.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate and benchmark the current clinical and dosimetric practices in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the UK. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire was sent to 70 radiotherapy centres in the UK. 97% (68/70) of centres replied between June and December 2014. RESULTS: 21 centres stated that they are practising SRS, and a further 12 centres plan to start SRS by the end of 2016. The most commonly treated indications are brain metastases and acoustic neuromas. A large range of prescription isodoses that range from 45% to 100% between different radiotherapy centres was seen. Ionization chambers and solid-water phantoms are used by the majority of centres for patient-specific quality assurance, and thermoplastic masks for patient immobilization are more commonly used than fixed stereotactic frames. The majority of centres perform orthogonal kilovoltage X-rays for localization before and during delivery. The acceptable setup accuracy reported ranges from 0.1 to 2 mm with a mean of 0.8 mm. CONCLUSION: SRS has been increasing in use in the UK and will continue to increase in the next 2 years. There is no current consensus between SRS centres as a whole, or even between SRS centres with the same equipment, on the practices followed. This indicates the need for benchmarking and standardization in SRS practices within the UK. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article outlines the current practices in SRS and provides a benchmark for reference and comparison with future research in this technique.
Authors: Catharine H Clark; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Russell Thomas; Dean Wilkinson; Graham Bass; Julia Snaith; Clare Gouldstone; Steve Bolton; Rebecca Nutbrown; Karen Venables; Andrew Nisbet Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-11-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michael Torrens; Caroline Chung; Hyun-Tai Chung; Patrick Hanssens; David Jaffray; Andras Kemeny; David Larson; Marc Levivier; Christer Lindquist; Bodo Lippitz; Josef Novotny; Ian Paddick; Dheerendra Prasad; Chung Ping Yu Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Timothy Korytko; Tomas Radivoyevitch; Valdir Colussi; Barry W Wessels; Kunjan Pillai; Robert J Maciunas; Douglas B Einstein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brian J Blonigen; Ryan D Steinmetz; Linda Levin; Michael A Lamba; Ronald E Warnick; John C Breneman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Matthias Felix Haefner; Frederik Lars Giesel; Matthias Mattke; Daniel Rath; Moritz Wade; Jacob Kuypers; Alan Preuss; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jens-Peter Schenk; Juergen Debus; Florian Sterzing; Roland Unterhinninghofen Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-01-08
Authors: Hannah P Wilson; Patricia M Price; Keyoumars Ashkan; Andrew Edwards; Melanie M Green; Timothy Cross; Ronald P Beaney; Rhiannon Davies; Amen Sibtain; Nick P Plowman; Christy Goldsmith Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-03-27
Authors: Alexandra Hellerbach; Markus Eichner; Daniel Rueß; Klaus Luyken; Mauritius Hoevels; Michael Judge; Christian Baues; Maximilian Ruge; Martin Kocher; Harald Treuer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Thomas A D Brown; Jessica M Fagerstrom; Caleb Beck; Connor Holloway; Krista Burton; Darryl G L Kaurin; Saikanth Mahendra; Marcus Luckstead; Kayla Kielar; James Kerns Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 2.243