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: Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and dynamic conformal arc therapy in stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas.
    Author: Lee TF, Chao PJ, Wang CY, Lan JH, Huang YJ, Hsu HC, Sung CC, Su TJ, Lian SL, Fang FM.
    Journal: Med Dosim; 2011; 36(1):62-70. PubMed ID: 20188537.
    Abstract:
    The dosimetric results of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for vestibular schwannoma (VS) performed using dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) with the Novalis system and helical TomoTherapy (HT) were compared using plan quality indices. The HT plans were created for 10 consecutive patients with VS previously treated with SRS using the Novalis system. The dosimetric indices used to compare the techniques included the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for the planned target volume (PTV), the comprehensive quality index (CQI) for nine organs at risk (OARs), gradient score index (GSI) for the dose drop-off outside the PTV, and plan quality index (PQI), which was verified using the plan quality discerning power (PQDP) to incorporate 3 plan indices, to evaluate the rival plans. The PTV ranged from 0.27-19.99 cm(3) (median 3.39 cm(3)), with minimum required PTV prescribed doses of 10-16 Gy (median 12 Gy). Both systems satisfied the minimum required PTV prescription doses. HT conformed better to the PTV (CI: 1.51 ± 0.23 vs. 1.94 ± 0.34; p < 0.01), but had a worse drop-off outside the PTV (GSI: 40.3 ± 10.9 vs. 64.9 ± 13.6; p < 0.01) compared with DCAT. No significant difference in PTV homogeneity was observed (HI: 1.08 ± 0.03 vs. 1.09 ± 0.02; p = 0.20). HT had a significantly lower maximum dose in 4 OARs and significant lower mean dose in 1 OAR; by contrast, DCAT had a significantly lower maximum dose in 1 OAR and significant lower mean dose in 2 OARs, with the CQI of the 9 OARs = 0.92 ± 0.45. Plan analysis using PQI (HT 0.37 ± 0.12 vs. DCAT 0.65 ± 0.08; p < 0.01), and verified using the PQDP, confirmed the dosimetric advantage of HT. However, the HT system had a longer beam-on time (33.2 ± 7.4 vs. 4.6 ± 0.9 min; p < 0.01) and consumed more monitor units (16772 ± 3803 vs. 1776 ± 356.3; p < 0.01). HT had a better dose conformity and similar dose homogeneity but worse dose gradient than DCAT. Plan analysis confirmed the dosimetric advantage of HT, although not all indices revealed a better outcome for HT. Whether this dosimetric advantage translates into a clinical benefit deserves further investigation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]