Chang Heon Choi1,2,3, So-Yeon Park1,2,3, Jung-In Kim1,2,3, Jin Ho Kim1,2,3, Kyubo Kim4, Joel Carlson5, Jong Min Park1,2,3,6. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Institute of Radiation Medicine, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. 5 Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. 6 Center for Convergence Research on Robotics, Advance Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: A total of 20 patients with spine metastasis were retrospectively selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan and a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were generated. The spinal cords were defined based on MR images for the tri-Co-60 IMRT, while isotropic 1-mm margins were added to the spinal cords for the VMAT plans. The VMAT plans were generated with 10-MV flattening filter-free photon beams of TrueBeam STx™ (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), while the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay™ system (ViewRay inc., Cleveland, OH). The initial prescription dose was 18 Gy (1 fraction). If the tolerance dose of the spinal cord was not met, the prescription dose was reduced until the spinal cord tolerance dose was satisfied. RESULTS: The mean dose to the target volumes, conformity index and homogeneity index of the VMAT and tri-Co-60 IMRT were 17.8 ± 0.8 vs 13.7 ± 3.9 Gy, 0.85 ± 0.20 vs 1.58 ± 1.29 and 0.09 ± 0.04 vs 0.24 ± 0.19, respectively. The integral doses and beam-on times were 16,570 ± 1768 vs 22,087 ± 2.986 Gy cm3 and 3.95 ± 1.13 vs 48.82 ± 10.44 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: The tri-Co-60 IMRT seems inappropriate for spine SABR compared with VMAT. Advances in knowledge: For spine SABR, the tri-Co-60 IMRT is inappropriate owing to the large penumbra, large leaf width and low dose rate of the ViewRay system.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: A total of 20 patients with spine metastasis were retrospectively selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan and a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were generated. The spinal cords were defined based on MR images for the tri-Co-60 IMRT, while isotropic 1-mm margins were added to the spinal cords for the VMAT plans. The VMAT plans were generated with 10-MV flattening filter-free photon beams of TrueBeam STx™ (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), while the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay™ system (ViewRay inc., Cleveland, OH). The initial prescription dose was 18 Gy (1 fraction). If the tolerance dose of the spinal cord was not met, the prescription dose was reduced until the spinal cord tolerance dose was satisfied. RESULTS: The mean dose to the target volumes, conformity index and homogeneity index of the VMAT and tri-Co-60 IMRT were 17.8 ± 0.8 vs 13.7 ± 3.9 Gy, 0.85 ± 0.20 vs 1.58 ± 1.29 and 0.09 ± 0.04 vs 0.24 ± 0.19, respectively. The integral doses and beam-on times were 16,570 ± 1768 vs 22,087 ± 2.986 Gy cm3 and 3.95 ± 1.13 vs 48.82 ± 10.44 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: The tri-Co-60 IMRT seems inappropriate for spine SABR compared with VMAT. Advances in knowledge: For spine SABR, the tri-Co-60 IMRT is inappropriate owing to the large penumbra, large leaf width and low dose rate of the ViewRay system.
Authors: H Omar Wooten; Vivian Rodriguez; Olga Green; Rojano Kashani; Lakshmi Santanam; Kari Tanderup; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Catherine Merna; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Minsong Cao; Pin-Chieh Wang; Amar U Kishan; Argin Michailian; James Lamb; Ke Sheng; Nzhde Agazaryan; Daniel A Low; Patrick Kupelian; Michael L Steinberg; Percy Lee Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Jong Min Park; So-Yeon Park; Hak Jae Kim; Hong-Gyun Wu; Joel Carlson; Jung-In Kim Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: H Omar Wooten; Olga Green; Min Yang; Todd DeWees; Rojano Kashani; Jeff Olsen; Jeff Michalski; Deshan Yang; Kari Tanderup; Yanle Hu; H Harold Li; Sasa Mutic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ricardo Llorente; Benjamin O Spieler; James Victoria; Cristiane Takita; Raphael Yechieli; John C Ford; Karen Brown; Michael A Samuels; Eric A Mellon Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Luca Boldrini; Elisa Placidi; Nicola Dinapoli; Luigi Azario; Francesco Cellini; Mariangela Massaccesi; Silvia Chiesa; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Danila Piccari; Stefania Teodoli; Marco De Spirito; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-31