Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010 Jun 29;11(3):3223. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3223.
The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric characteristics of robotic and conventional linac-based SBRT techniques for lung cancer, and to provide planning guidance for each modality. Eight patients who received linac-based SBRT were retrospectively included in this study. A dose of 60 Gy given in three fractions was prescribed to each target. The Synchrony Respiratory Tracking System and a 4D dose calculation methodology were used for CyberKnife and linac-based SBRT, respectively, to minimize respiratory impact on dose calculation. Identical image and contour sets were used for both modalities. While both modalities can provide satisfactory target dose coverage, the dose to GTV was more heterogeneous for CyberKnife than for linac planning/delivery in all cases. The dose to 1000 cc lung was well below institutional constraints for both modalities. In the high dose region, the lung dose depended on tumor size, and was similar between both modalities. In the low dose region, however, the quality of CyberKnife plans was dependent on tumor location. With anteriorly-located tumors, the CyberKnife may deliver less dose to normal lung than linac techniques. Conversely, for posteriorly-located tumors, CyberKnife delivery may result in higher doses to normal lung. In all cases studied, more monitor units were required for CyberKnife delivery for given prescription. Both conventional linacs and CyberKnife provide acceptable target dose coverage while sparing normal tissues. The results of this study provide a general guideline for patient and treatment modality selection based on dosimetric, tumor and normal tissue sparing considerations.
本研究旨在比较机器人和常规直线加速器立体定向放疗(SBRT)技术治疗肺癌的剂量学特征,并为每种治疗方式提供计划指导。本研究回顾性纳入了 8 名接受直线加速器 SBRT 的患者。每个靶区处方剂量为 60Gy,分为 3 次给予。Synchrony 呼吸跟踪系统和 4D 剂量计算方法分别用于 CyberKnife 和直线加速器 SBRT,以最大限度地减少呼吸对剂量计算的影响。两种治疗方式均使用相同的图像和轮廓集。虽然两种治疗方式都可以提供满意的靶区剂量覆盖,但在所有情况下,CyberKnife 的 GTV 剂量分布都比直线加速器计划/治疗更不均匀。两种治疗方式的 1000cc 肺剂量均低于机构限制。在高剂量区域,肺剂量取决于肿瘤大小,两种治疗方式相似。然而,在低剂量区域,CyberKnife 计划的质量取决于肿瘤位置。对于前位肿瘤,CyberKnife 向正常肺组织输送的剂量可能比直线加速器技术少。相反,对于后位肿瘤,CyberKnife 治疗可能会导致正常肺组织接受更高的剂量。在所有研究的病例中,为了达到给定的处方剂量,CyberKnife 治疗需要更多的监测器单位。常规直线加速器和 CyberKnife 都可以在保护正常组织的同时提供可接受的靶区剂量覆盖。本研究的结果为基于剂量学、肿瘤和正常组织保护的患者和治疗方式选择提供了一般指导。