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 stereotactic radiosurgery to intensity modulated radiotherapy.
    Author: Kramer BA, Wazer DE, Engler MJ, Tsai JS, Ling MN.
    Journal: Radiat Oncol Investig; 1998; 6(1):18-25. PubMed ID: 9503486.
    Abstract:
    To compare the dosimetry achievable with an intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMR) system to that of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for an irregularly shaped moderate size target. A treatment plan was selected from 109 single fraction SRS cases having had multiple non-coplanar arc therapy using a 6 MV linear accelerator fitted with circular tertiary collimators 1.00 to 4.00 cm in diameter at isocenter. The CT scan with delineated regions of interest was then entered into an IMR treatment planning system and optimized dose distributions, using a back projection technique for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery, were generated with a stimulated annealing algorithm. Dose volume histograms (DVH), homogeneity indices (HI), conformity indices (CI), minimum and maximum doses to surrounding highly sensitive intracranial structures, as well as the volume of tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose from the IMR plan were then compared to those from the single isocenter SRS plan used and a hypothetical three isocenter SRS plan. For an irregularly shaped target, the IMR plan produced a HI of 1.08 and CI of 1.50 compared to 1.75 and 4.41, respectively, for the single isocenter SRS plan (SRS1) and 3.33 and 3.43 for the triple isocenter SRS plan (SRS3). The maximum and minimum doses to surrounding critical structures were less with the IMR plan in comparison to both SRS plans. However, the volume of non-target tissue treated to > 80, 50, and 20% of the prescription dose with the IMR plan was 137, 170, and 163%, respectively, of that treated with the SRS1 plan and 85, 100, and 123% of the volume when compared to SRS3 plan. The IMR system provided more conformal target doses than were provided by the single isocenter or three isocenter SRS plans. IMR delivered less dose to critical normal tissues and provided increased homogeneity within the target volume for a moderate size irregularly shaped target, at the cost of a larger penumbra.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]