Daniela Greto1, Stefania Pallotta2, Laura Masi3, Cinzia Talamonti2, Livia Marrazzo2, Raffaella Doro3, Calogero Saieva4, Silvia Scoccianti5, Isacco Desideri5, Lorenzo Livi5. 1. Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50141, Florence, Italy. daniela.greto@gmail.com. 2. Medical Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 3. Medical Physics Unit, I.F.C.A., Florence, Italy. 4. Molecular and Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, ISPO (Cancer Research and Prevention Institute), Florence, Italy. 5. Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50141, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiosurgery (RS) is a well-established treatment in selected patients with brain metastasis. The aim of this study is to compare the differences between CyberKnife (CK) and TomoTherapy (HT) treatment plans of RS of single brain metastasis (BM) to define when HT should be used in cases beyond Cyberknife-when both systems are readily available for the radiation oncologist. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with single brain metastasis treated with CK were re-planned for radiosurgery using TomoTherapy Hi-ART system. Two planning approaches have been used for TomoTherapy plans: the classical one (HT) and the improved conformity (icHT) that produces dose distributions more similar to those of RS plans. PTV coverage, Conformity Index (CI), Paddick Conformity Index (nCI), Homogeneity Index (HI), Gradient Index (GI), and beam on time of CK, HT, and icHT plans were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: A good coverage was found for CK, HT, and icHT plans. A difference between mean HI of CK and icHT plans was observed (p = 0.007). Better dose gradients compared to both icHT and HT modalities were observed in CK plans. icHT modality showed improved mean CI respect to HT modality, similar to that obtained in CK plans. CONCLUSIONS: CK plans show higher conformity and lower GI than icHT and HT plans. TomoTherapy demonstrates the advantage of being a device capable to reach different clinical objectives depending on the different planning modality employed. CyberKnife and TomoTherapy are both optimal RS devices, the choice to use one over another has to be clinically guided.
PURPOSE: Radiosurgery (RS) is a well-established treatment in selected patients with brain metastasis. The aim of this study is to compare the differences between CyberKnife (CK) and TomoTherapy (HT) treatment plans of RS of single brain metastasis (BM) to define when HT should be used in cases beyond Cyberknife-when both systems are readily available for the radiation oncologist. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with single brain metastasis treated with CK were re-planned for radiosurgery using TomoTherapy Hi-ART system. Two planning approaches have been used for TomoTherapy plans: the classical one (HT) and the improved conformity (icHT) that produces dose distributions more similar to those of RS plans. PTV coverage, Conformity Index (CI), Paddick Conformity Index (nCI), Homogeneity Index (HI), Gradient Index (GI), and beam on time of CK, HT, and icHT plans were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: A good coverage was found for CK, HT, and icHT plans. A difference between mean HI of CK and icHT plans was observed (p = 0.007). Better dose gradients compared to both icHT and HT modalities were observed in CK plans. icHT modality showed improved mean CI respect to HT modality, similar to that obtained in CK plans. CONCLUSIONS:CK plans show higher conformity and lower GI than icHT and HT plans. TomoTherapy demonstrates the advantage of being a device capable to reach different clinical objectives depending on the different planning modality employed. CyberKnife and TomoTherapy are both optimal RS devices, the choice to use one over another has to be clinically guided.
Authors: Chunhui Han; An Liu; Timothy E Schultheiss; Richard D Pezner; Yi-Jen Chen; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brigitta G Baumert; Isabelle Rutten; Cary Dehing-Oberije; Albert Twijnstra; Miranda J M Dirx; Ria M T L Debougnoux-Huppertz; Philippe Lambin; Bela Kubat Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E Shaw; C Scott; L Souhami; R Dinapoli; R Kline; J Loeffler; N Farnan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mischa S Hoogeman; Joost J Nuyttens; Peter C Levendag; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 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