Published September 16, 2017 | Version v1
Journal article

Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiotherapy

  • 1. Biophotonics and Molecular Imaging Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC (China)
  • 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, No. 155, Sec. 2, Li-Nong St., Beitou District, Taipei, 112 Taiwan, ROC (China)
  • 3. Medical Physics and Radiation Measurements Laboratory, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC (China)
  • 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan, ROC (China)
  • 5. Department of Physics, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC (China)

Description

The modalities for performing stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) on the brain include the cone-based linear accelerator (linac), the flattening filter-free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) linac, and tomotherapy. In this study, the cone-based linac, FFF-VMAT linac, and tomotherapy modalities were evaluated by measuring the differences in doses delivered during brain SRT and experimentally assessing the accuracy of the output radiation doses through clinical measurements. We employed a homemade acrylic dosimetry phantom representing the head, within which a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and radiochromic EBT3 film were installed. Using the conformity/gradient index (CGI) and Paddick methods, the quality of the doses delivered by the various SRT modalities was evaluated. The quality indicators included the uniformity, conformity, and gradient indices. TLDs and EBT3 films were used to experimentally assess the accuracy of the SRT dose output. The dose homogeneity indices of all the treatment modalities were lower than 1.25. The cone-based linac had the best conformity for all tumors, regardless of the tumor location and size, followed by the FFF-VMAT linac; tomography was the worst-performing treatment modality in this regard. The cone-based linac had the best gradient, regardless of the tumor location and size, whereas the FFF-VMAT linac had a better gradient than tomotherapy for a large tumor diameter (28 mm). The TLD and EBT3 measurements of the dose at the center of tumors indicated that the average difference between the measurements and the calculated dose was generally less than 4%. When the 3% 3-mm gamma passing rate metric was used, the average passing rates of all three treatment modalities exceeded 98%. Regarding the dose, the cone-based linac had the best conformity and steepest dose gradient for tumors of different sizes and distances from the brainstem. The results of this study suggest that SRT should be performed using the cone-based linac on tumors that require treatment plans with a steep dose gradient, even as the tumor is slightly irregular, we should also consider using a high dose gradient of the cone base to treat and protect the normal tissue. If normal tissues require special protection exist at positions that are superior or inferior to the tumor, we can consider using tomotherapy or Cone base with couch at 0° for treatment.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0890-0; Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5602945

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Radiation Oncology (Online)
Journal Volume
12
Journal Page Range
vp.
ISSN
1748-717X

INIS

Country of Publication
United Kingdom
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
49082460
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; FILM DOSIMETRY; NEOPLASMS; RADIATION DOSES; THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS
Descriptors DEC
DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DISEASES; DOSEMETERS; DOSES; DOSIMETRY; LUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS; MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RADIOLOGY; RADIOTHERAPY; THERAPY; TOMOGRAPHY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) The Author(s). 2017
Notes
PMCID: PMC5602945; PMID: 28915893; PMID: 28915893; PUBLISHER-ID: 890; OAI: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:5602945