These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of IMRT and leaf width on stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver and lung lesions.
    Author: Dvorak P, Georg D, Bogner J, Kroupa B, Dieckmann K, Pötter R.
    Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Apr 01; 61(5):1572-81. PubMed ID: 15817364.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The present study explored the impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on stereotactic body RT (SBRT) of liver and lung lesions. Additionally, because target dose conformity can be affected by the leaf width of a multileaf collimator (MLC), especially for small targets and stereotactic applications, the use of a micro-MLC on "uniform intensity" conformal and intensity-modulated SBRT was evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The present study included 10 patients treated previously with SBRT in our institution (seven lung and three liver lesions). All patients were treated with 3 x 12 Gy prescribed to the 65% isodose level. The actual MLC-based conformal treatment plan served as the standard for additional comparison. In total, seven alternative treatment plans were made for each patient: a standard (actual) plan and an IMRT plan, both calculated with Helax TMS (Nucletron) using a pencil beam model; and a recalculated standard and a recalculated IMRT plan on Helax TMS using a point dose kernel approach. These four treatment plans were based on a standard MLC with 1-cm leaf width. Additionally, the following micro-MLC (central leaf width 3 mm)-based treatment plans were calculated with the BrainSCAN (BrainLAB) system: standard, IMRT, and dynamic arc treatments. For each treatment plan, various target parameters (conformity, coverage, mean, maximal, and minimal target dose, equivalent uniform doses, and dose-volume histogram), as well as organs at risk parameters (3 Gy and 6 Gy volume, mean dose, dose-volume histogram) were evaluated. Finally, treatment efficiency was estimated from monitor units and the number of segments for IMRT solutions. RESULTS: For both treatment planning systems, no significant difference could be observed in terms of target conformity between the standard and IMRT dose distributions. All dose distributions obtained with the micro-MLC showed significantly better conformity values compared with the standard and IMRT plans using a regular MLC. Dynamic arc plans were characterized by the steepest dose gradient and thus the smallest V(6 Gy) values, which were on average 7% smaller than the standard plans and 20% lower than the IMRT plans. Although the Helax TMS IMRT plans show about 18% more monitor units than the standard plan, BrainSCAN IMRT plans require approximately twice the number of monitor units relative to the standard plan. All treatment plans optimized with a pencil beam model but recalculated with a superposition method showed significant qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences, especially with respect to conformity and the dose to organs at risk. CONCLUSION: Standard conformal treatment techniques for SBRT could not be improved with inversely planned IMRT approaches. Dose calculation algorithms applied in optimization modules for IMRT applications in the thoracic region need to be based on the most accurate dose calculation algorithms, especially when using higher energy photon beams.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]