PURPOSE: To determine if the gamma knife icon (GKI) can provide superior stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) dose distributions for appropriately selected meningioma and post-resection brain tumor bed treatments to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Appropriately selected targets were not proximal to great vessels, did not have sensitive soft tissue including organs-at-risk (OARs) within the planning target volume (PTV), and did not have concave tumors containing excessive normal brain tissue. Four of fourteen candidate meningioma patients and six of six candidate patients with brain tumor cavities were considered for this treatment planning comparison study. PTVs were generated for GKI and VMAT by adding 1 mm and 3 mm margins, respectively, to the GTVs. Identical PTV V100% -values were obtained for the GKI and VMAT plans for each patient. Meningioma and tumor bed prescription doses were 52.7-54.0 in 1.7-1.8 Gy fractions and 25 Gy in 5 Gy fractions, respectively. GKI dose rate was 3.735 Gy/min for 16 mm collimators. RESULTS: PTV radical dose homogeneity index was 3.03 ± 0.35 for GKI and 1.27 ± 0.19 for VMAT. Normal brain D1% , D5% , and D10% were lower for GKI than VMAT by 45.8 ± 10.9%, 38.9 ± 11.5%, and 35.4 ± 16.5% respectively. All OARs considered received lower maximum doses for GKI than VMAT. GKI and VMAT treatment times for meningioma plans were 12.1 ± 4.13 min and 6.2 ± 0.32 min, respectively, and, for tumor cavities, were 18.1 ± 5.1 min and 11.0 ± 0.56 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately selected meningioma and brain tumor bed patients may benefit from GKI-based SRT due to the decreased normal brain and OAR doses relative to VMAT enabled by smaller margins. Care must be taken in meningioma patient selection for SRT with the GKI, even if they are clinically appropriate for VMAT.
PURPOSE: To determine if the gamma knife icon (GKI) can provide superior stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) dose distributions for appropriately selected meningioma and post-resection brain tumor bed treatments to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Appropriately selected targets were not proximal to great vessels, did not have sensitive soft tissue including organs-at-risk (OARs) within the planning target volume (PTV), and did not have concave tumors containing excessive normal brain tissue. Four of fourteen candidate meningiomapatients and six of six candidate patients with brain tumor cavities were considered for this treatment planning comparison study. PTVs were generated for GKI and VMAT by adding 1 mm and 3 mm margins, respectively, to the GTVs. Identical PTV V100% -values were obtained for the GKI and VMAT plans for each patient. Meningioma and tumor bed prescription doses were 52.7-54.0 in 1.7-1.8 Gy fractions and 25 Gy in 5 Gy fractions, respectively. GKI dose rate was 3.735 Gy/min for 16 mm collimators. RESULTS:PTV radical dose homogeneity index was 3.03 ± 0.35 for GKI and 1.27 ± 0.19 for VMAT. Normal brain D1% , D5% , and D10% were lower for GKI than VMAT by 45.8 ± 10.9%, 38.9 ± 11.5%, and 35.4 ± 16.5% respectively. All OARs considered received lower maximum doses for GKI than VMAT. GKI and VMAT treatment times for meningioma plans were 12.1 ± 4.13 min and 6.2 ± 0.32 min, respectively, and, for tumor cavities, were 18.1 ± 5.1 min and 11.0 ± 0.56 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately selected meningioma and brain tumor bed patients may benefit from GKI-based SRT due to the decreased normal brain and OAR doses relative to VMAT enabled by smaller margins. Care must be taken in meningiomapatient selection for SRT with the GKI, even if they are clinically appropriate for VMAT.
Authors: Michele Zeverino; Maud Jaccard; David Patin; Nick Ryckx; Maud Marguet; Constantin Tuleasca; Luis Schiappacasse; Jean Bourhis; Marc Levivier; Francois O Bochud; Raphaël Moeckli Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Peng Dong; Angélica Pérez-Andújar; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Steve Braunstein; Philip Theodosopoulos; Michael McDermott; Penny Sneed; Lijun Ma Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: K S Condra; J M Buatti; W M Mendenhall; W A Friedman; R B Marcus; A L Rhoton Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lijun Ma; Arjun Sahgal; David A Larson; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Shannon Fogh; Igor Barani; Jean Nakamura; Michael McDermott; Penny Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Florian Stieler; Frederik Wenz; Beate Schweizer; Martin Polednik; Frank Anton Giordano; Sabine Mai Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Marie Huss; Pierre Barsoum; Ernest Dodoo; Georges Sinclair; Iuliana Toma-Dasu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Rami A El Shafie; Maja Czech; Kerstin A Kessel; Daniel Habermehl; Dorothea Weber; Stefan Rieken; Nina Bougatf; Oliver Jäkel; Jürgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.481