Literature DB >> 26836488

Real time tracking in liver SBRT: comparison of CyberKnife and Vero by planning structure-based γ-evaluation and dose-area-histograms.

T Sothmann1, O Blanck, K Poels, R Werner, T Gauer.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare two clinical tracking systems for radiosurgery with regard to their dosimetric and geometrical accuracy in liver SBRT: the robot-based CyberKnife and the gimbal-based Vero. Both systems perform real-time tumour tracking by correlating internal tumour and external surrogate motion. CyberKnife treatment plans were delivered to a high resolution 2D detector array mounted on a 4D motion platform, with the platform simulating (a) tumour motion trajectories extracted from the corresponding CyberKnife predictor log files and (b) the tumour motion trajectories with superimposed baseline-drift. Static reference and tracked dose measurements were compared and dosimetric as well as geometrical uncertainties analyzed by a planning structure-based evaluation. For (a), γ-passing rates inside the CTV (γ-criteria of 1% / 1 mm) ranged from 95% to 100% (CyberKnife) and 98% to 100% (Vero). However, dosimetric accuracy decreases in the presence of the baseline-drift. γ-passing rates for (b) ranged from 26% to 92% and 94% to 99%, respectively; i.e. the effect was more pronounced for CyberKnife. In contrast, the Vero system led to maximum dose deviations in the OAR between  +1.5 Gy to +6.0 Gy (CyberKnife: +0.5 Gy to +3.5 Gy). Potential dose shifts were interpreted as motion-induced geometrical tracking errors. Maximum observed shift ranges were  -1.0 mm to  +0.7 mm (lateral) /-0.6 mm to +0.1 mm (superior-inferior) for CyberKnife and  -0.8 mm to +0.2 mm /-0.8 mm to +0.4 mm for Vero. These values illustrate that CyberKnife and Vero provide high precision tracking of regular breathing patterns. Even for the modified motion trajectory, the obtained dose distributions appear to be clinical acceptable with regard to literature QA γ-criteria of 3% / 3 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26836488     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/4/1677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  6 in total

1.  Under-reported dosimetry errors due to interplay effects during VMAT dose delivery in extreme hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.

Authors:  Tobias Gauer; Thilo Sothmann; Oliver Blanck; Cordula Petersen; René Werner
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Consensus on Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Small-Sized Hepatocellular Carcinoma at the 7th Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Meeting.

Authors:  Zhao-Chong Zeng; Jinsil Seong; Sang Min Yoon; Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng; Ka-On Lam; Ann-Shing Lee; Ada Law; Jian-Ying Zhang; Yong Hu
Journal:  Liver Cancer       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 11.740

3.  4D dose simulation in volumetric arc therapy: Accuracy and affecting parameters.

Authors:  Thilo Sothmann; Tobias Gauer; René Werner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Real-time 4D dose reconstruction for tracked dynamic MLC deliveries for lung SBRT.

Authors:  Cornelis Ph Kamerling; Martin F Fast; Peter Ziegenhein; Martin J Menten; Simeon Nill; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques.

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Victor Hernandez; Núria Jornet; Catharine H Clark
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-03-19

6.  Observation of different tumor motion magnitude within liver and estimate of internal motion margins in postoperative patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Yu-Ting Zhao; Zhi-Kai Liu; Qiu-Wen Wu; Jian-Rong Dai; Tao Zhang; Angela Y Jia; Jing Jin; Shu-Lian Wang; Ye-Xiong Li; Wei-Hu Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 3.989

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.