Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors: Linac or robotic?

Mariluz De Ornelas-Couto, Elizabeth Bossart, Bevan Ly, Maria Irene Monterroso, Ivaylo B Mihaylov

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used for spine treatments as it precisely delivers high radiation dose to tumors in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs). The goal of this work is to evaluate dosimetric properties of SBRT for spinal treatments with linear accelerators and CyberKnife (CK). Materials and methods: Plans of 27 patients, treated withCKfor spine tumors, were also retrospectively optimized for linac-based (LB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). One nine-field IMRT plan and fiveVMATplans were generated for each patient. The LB target volumes were uniformly expanded by 0.1 cm to accommodate for the uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to cover 90% of the target volumes with a prescription dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. If dose constraints to OARs were not met, the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy. Target dose conformity and falloff were evaluated with Paddick's conformity (CI) and gradient (GI) indices. Results: PTV expansion resulted in a 31.5% volume increase in the LB plans. The three full-arcsVMAT(VMAT 3full) plans resulted in the best average CI(0.820) compared toCK(0.758) with worst average from one half-arcsVMAT (VMAT 1half) plans (0.747). Dose falloff was also superior with the VMAT 3full plans with an average GI value of 3.596, in comparison toCK(3.786) and IMRT(4.447). In 6 cases CKplans were unable to meetOARconstraints and the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy, compared to only 2 for VMAT 3full. Conclusion: Regardless of the larger target volumes, LB plans were comparable toCK plans. Conformity of target doses of the VMAT 3full plans were better than CKin all cases and dose fall-off was better 23 of 27 plans. Dose to OARs were lower for CK, but constraints met for all plans. The use ofVMATwould reduce the treatment time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number015012
JournalBiomedical Physics and Engineering Express
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 9 2016

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Robotics
Spine
Radiotherapy
Organs at Risk
Neoplasms
Prescriptions
Radiosurgery
Patient Positioning
Particle Accelerators
Uncertainty
Therapeutics
Radiation

Keywords

  • Cyberknife
  • IMRT
  • SBRT
  • Spine
  • VMAT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors : Linac or robotic? / De Ornelas-Couto, Mariluz; Bossart, Elizabeth; Ly, Bevan; Monterroso, Maria Irene; Mihaylov, Ivaylo B.

In: Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express, Vol. 2, No. 1, 015012, 09.02.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De Ornelas-Couto, Mariluz ; Bossart, Elizabeth ; Ly, Bevan ; Monterroso, Maria Irene ; Mihaylov, Ivaylo B. / Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors : Linac or robotic?. In: Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express. 2016 ; Vol. 2, No. 1.
@article{43c95bf8b79a4849bf3659e3e17a9080,
title = "Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors: Linac or robotic?",
abstract = "Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used for spine treatments as it precisely delivers high radiation dose to tumors in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs). The goal of this work is to evaluate dosimetric properties of SBRT for spinal treatments with linear accelerators and CyberKnife (CK). Materials and methods: Plans of 27 patients, treated withCKfor spine tumors, were also retrospectively optimized for linac-based (LB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). One nine-field IMRT plan and fiveVMATplans were generated for each patient. The LB target volumes were uniformly expanded by 0.1 cm to accommodate for the uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to cover 90{\%} of the target volumes with a prescription dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. If dose constraints to OARs were not met, the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy. Target dose conformity and falloff were evaluated with Paddick's conformity (CI) and gradient (GI) indices. Results: PTV expansion resulted in a 31.5{\%} volume increase in the LB plans. The three full-arcsVMAT(VMAT 3full) plans resulted in the best average CI(0.820) compared toCK(0.758) with worst average from one half-arcsVMAT (VMAT 1half) plans (0.747). Dose falloff was also superior with the VMAT 3full plans with an average GI value of 3.596, in comparison toCK(3.786) and IMRT(4.447). In 6 cases CKplans were unable to meetOARconstraints and the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy, compared to only 2 for VMAT 3full. Conclusion: Regardless of the larger target volumes, LB plans were comparable toCK plans. Conformity of target doses of the VMAT 3full plans were better than CKin all cases and dose fall-off was better 23 of 27 plans. Dose to OARs were lower for CK, but constraints met for all plans. The use ofVMATwould reduce the treatment time.",
keywords = "Cyberknife, IMRT, SBRT, Spine, VMAT",
author = "{De Ornelas-Couto}, Mariluz and Elizabeth Bossart and Bevan Ly and Monterroso, {Maria Irene} and Mihaylov, {Ivaylo B}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1088/2057-1976/2/1/015012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
journal = "Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express",
issn = "2057-1976",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiation therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy in spine tumors

T2 - Linac or robotic?

AU - De Ornelas-Couto, Mariluz

AU - Bossart, Elizabeth

AU - Ly, Bevan

AU - Monterroso, Maria Irene

AU - Mihaylov, Ivaylo B

PY - 2016/2/9

Y1 - 2016/2/9

N2 - Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used for spine treatments as it precisely delivers high radiation dose to tumors in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs). The goal of this work is to evaluate dosimetric properties of SBRT for spinal treatments with linear accelerators and CyberKnife (CK). Materials and methods: Plans of 27 patients, treated withCKfor spine tumors, were also retrospectively optimized for linac-based (LB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). One nine-field IMRT plan and fiveVMATplans were generated for each patient. The LB target volumes were uniformly expanded by 0.1 cm to accommodate for the uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to cover 90% of the target volumes with a prescription dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. If dose constraints to OARs were not met, the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy. Target dose conformity and falloff were evaluated with Paddick's conformity (CI) and gradient (GI) indices. Results: PTV expansion resulted in a 31.5% volume increase in the LB plans. The three full-arcsVMAT(VMAT 3full) plans resulted in the best average CI(0.820) compared toCK(0.758) with worst average from one half-arcsVMAT (VMAT 1half) plans (0.747). Dose falloff was also superior with the VMAT 3full plans with an average GI value of 3.596, in comparison toCK(3.786) and IMRT(4.447). In 6 cases CKplans were unable to meetOARconstraints and the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy, compared to only 2 for VMAT 3full. Conclusion: Regardless of the larger target volumes, LB plans were comparable toCK plans. Conformity of target doses of the VMAT 3full plans were better than CKin all cases and dose fall-off was better 23 of 27 plans. Dose to OARs were lower for CK, but constraints met for all plans. The use ofVMATwould reduce the treatment time.

AB - Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used for spine treatments as it precisely delivers high radiation dose to tumors in close proximity to organs-at-risk (OARs). The goal of this work is to evaluate dosimetric properties of SBRT for spinal treatments with linear accelerators and CyberKnife (CK). Materials and methods: Plans of 27 patients, treated withCKfor spine tumors, were also retrospectively optimized for linac-based (LB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). One nine-field IMRT plan and fiveVMATplans were generated for each patient. The LB target volumes were uniformly expanded by 0.1 cm to accommodate for the uncertainty in patient positioning. All plans were optimized to cover 90% of the target volumes with a prescription dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. If dose constraints to OARs were not met, the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy. Target dose conformity and falloff were evaluated with Paddick's conformity (CI) and gradient (GI) indices. Results: PTV expansion resulted in a 31.5% volume increase in the LB plans. The three full-arcsVMAT(VMAT 3full) plans resulted in the best average CI(0.820) compared toCK(0.758) with worst average from one half-arcsVMAT (VMAT 1half) plans (0.747). Dose falloff was also superior with the VMAT 3full plans with an average GI value of 3.596, in comparison toCK(3.786) and IMRT(4.447). In 6 cases CKplans were unable to meetOARconstraints and the prescription dose was decreased to 24 Gy, compared to only 2 for VMAT 3full. Conclusion: Regardless of the larger target volumes, LB plans were comparable toCK plans. Conformity of target doses of the VMAT 3full plans were better than CKin all cases and dose fall-off was better 23 of 27 plans. Dose to OARs were lower for CK, but constraints met for all plans. The use ofVMATwould reduce the treatment time.

KW - Cyberknife

KW - IMRT

KW - SBRT

KW - Spine

KW - VMAT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046235763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046235763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/2057-1976/2/1/015012

DO - 10.1088/2057-1976/2/1/015012

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85046235763

VL - 2

JO - Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express

JF - Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express

SN - 2057-1976

IS - 1

M1 - 015012

ER -