首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics >Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems
【2h】

Comparison of stereotactic plans for brain tumors with two different multileaf collimating systems

机译:两种不同的多叶准直系统对脑肿瘤的立体定向计划的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been widely used for treating small intracranial lesions. This technique allows conforming the dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), providing a steep dose gradient with the surrounding normal tissues. This is realized through dedicated collimation systems. The present study aims to compare SRS plans with two collimating systems: the beam modulator (BM) of the Elekta Synergy linac and the DirexGroup micromultileaf collimator (μMLC). Seventeen patients (25 PTVs) were planned both with BM and μMLC (mounted on an Elekta Precise linac) using the Odyssey (PerMedics) treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were compared in terms of dose‐volume histograms (DVH), minimum dose to the PTV, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI), as defined by the TPS, and doses to relevant organs at risk (OAR). The mean difference between the μMLC and the BM plans in minimum PTV dose was 5.7%±4.2% in favor of the μMLC plans. No statistically significant difference was found between the distributions of the CI values for the two planning modalities (p=0.54), while the difference between the distributions of the HI values was statistically significant (p=0.018). For both BM and μMLC plans, no differences were observed in CI and HI, depending on lesion size and shape. The PTV homogeneity achieved by BM plans was 15.1%±6.8% compared to 10.4%±6.6% with μMLC. Higher maximum and mean doses to OAR were observed in the BM plans; however, for both plans, dose constraints were respected. The comparison between the two collimating systems showed no substantial differences in terms of PTV coverage or OAR sparing. The improvements obtained by using μMLC are relatively small, and both systems turned out to be adequate for SRS treatments.PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.55.dk, 87.56.nk
机译:基于直线加速器的立体定向放射外科手术(SRS)已被广泛用于治疗颅内小病变。这种技术可以使剂量分布与计划目标体积(PTV)保持一致,从而与周围的正常组织形成陡峭的剂量梯度。这是通过专用的准直系统实现的。本研究旨在将SRS计划与两个准直系统进行比较:Elekta Synergy直线加速器的光束调制器(BM)和DirexGroup微多叶准直器 μ MLC 。计划使用BM和μ MLC (安装在Elekta Precise直线加速器上)使用奥德赛(PerMedics)治疗计划系统(TPS)。根据剂量体积直方图(DVH),PTV的最小剂量,TPS定义的合格指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)以及对相关风险器官的剂量(OAR),比较了计划。 μ MLC ,最小PTV剂量下的BM计划为 5.7 ± 4.2 赞成 μ MLC 计划。在两种计划模式的CI值分布之间未发现统计学上的显着差异。 p = 0.54 ,而HI值的分布之间的差异具有统计显着性 p = 0.018 < mo Stretchy =“ false”>) 。对于BM和 μ MLC 计划,根据病变大小和形状,在CI和HI中未观察到差异。 BM计划实现的PTV同质性是 15.1 ± 6.8 10.4 ± 6.6 μ MLC 。在BM计划中观察到较高的OAR最大剂量和平均剂量;但是,对于这两个计划,都遵守剂量限制。两种准直系统之间的比较显示,在PTV覆盖范围或OAR保留方面没有实质性差异。通过使用 μ MLC 相对较小,并且两个系统都足以用于SRS处理。PACS编号:87.53.Ly,87.55.dk,87.56.nk

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号