Nalee Kim1, Ho Lee1, Jin Sung Kim1, Jong Geal Baek1, Chang Geol Lee1, Sei Kyung Chang2, Woong Sub Koom1. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases is becoming a prevalent therapeutic option. We aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of the recently developed multileaf collimator (MLC)-based CyberKnife (CK-M) for spine SBRT. METHODS: We reviewed 119 patients of 144 cases with 229 lesions treated with CK between November 2014 and March 2016. The lesion features, dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared between fixed cone collimator based CK (CK-F) and CK-M. RESULTS: Of 144 cases, 78 and 66 were treated with CK-F and CK-M, respectively. CK-M achieved an adequate target volume coverage that was comparable with CK-F (median 92 vs 90%; p = 0.03) even in larger targets (median 64.2 vs 46.7 cm3; p = 0.01), respectively. CK-M showed an improvement in the gradient index (p < 0.001) and no difference in conformity (p = 0.16). With CK-M, the median beam delivery time was significantly reduced by 30% (to 34 vs 48 min; p < 0.001). CK-M showed 1 year local control rates that were comparable to CK-F (77 vs 78%, respectively; p = 0.83). CONCLUSION: CK-M exhibits dosimetric data and local control that are comparable with CK-F, but with significant treatment time reduction. CK-M could be widely used in spine SBRT. Advances in knowledge: Given the recently developed MLC in CK, we aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of MLC compared with fixed cone-based CK. MLC showed equivalent plan quality and significant treatment time reduction with comparable radiological control. We report here MLC as an effective and tolerable treatment option in CK.
OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases is becoming a prevalent therapeutic option. We aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of the recently developed multileaf collimator (MLC)-based CyberKnife (CK-M) for spine SBRT. METHODS: We reviewed 119 patients of 144 cases with 229 lesions treated with CK between November 2014 and March 2016. The lesion features, dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared between fixed cone collimator based CK (CK-F) and CK-M. RESULTS: Of 144 cases, 78 and 66 were treated with CK-F and CK-M, respectively. CK-M achieved an adequate target volume coverage that was comparable with CK-F (median 92 vs 90%; p = 0.03) even in larger targets (median 64.2 vs 46.7 cm3; p = 0.01), respectively. CK-M showed an improvement in the gradient index (p < 0.001) and no difference in conformity (p = 0.16). With CK-M, the median beam delivery time was significantly reduced by 30% (to 34 vs 48 min; p < 0.001). CK-M showed 1 year local control rates that were comparable to CK-F (77 vs 78%, respectively; p = 0.83). CONCLUSION:CK-M exhibits dosimetric data and local control that are comparable with CK-F, but with significant treatment time reduction. CK-M could be widely used in spine SBRT. Advances in knowledge: Given the recently developed MLC in CK, we aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and outcomes of MLC compared with fixed cone-based CK. MLC showed equivalent plan quality and significant treatment time reduction with comparable radiological control. We report here MLC as an effective and tolerable treatment option in CK.
Authors: Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer; Daryl R Fourney; Michael Groff; Meic H Schmidt; Peter Paul Varga; Frank D Vrionis; Yoshiya Yamada; Peter C Gerszten; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-09
Authors: Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; D Michael Lovelock; Ennapadam S Venkatraman; Sean Toner; Jared Johnson; Joan Zatcky; Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charles G Fisher; Christian P DiPaola; Timothy C Ryken; Mark H Bilsky; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd H Berven; James S Harrop; Michael G Fehlings; Stefano Boriani; Dean Chou; Meic H Schmidt; David W Polly; Roberto Biagini; Shane Burch; Mark B Dekutoski; Aruna Ganju; Peter C Gerszten; Ziya L Gokaslan; Michael W Groff; Norbert J Liebsch; Ehud Mendel; Scott H Okuno; Shreyaskumar Patel; Laurence D Rhines; Peter S Rose; Daniel M Sciubba; Narayan Sundaresan; Katsuro Tomita; Peter P Varga; Luiz R Vialle; Frank D Vrionis; Yoshiya Yamada; Daryl R Fourney Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: F R Macbeth; T E Wheldon; D J Girling; R J Stephens; D Machin; N M Bleehen; A Lamont; D J Radstone; N S Reed Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 1996 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Beant Gill; Eric Oermann; Andrew Ju; Simeng Suy; Xia Yu; Jennifer Rabin; Christopher Kalhorn; Mani N Nair; Jean-Marc Voyadzis; Keith Unger; Sean P Collins; K W Harter; Brian T Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 6.244