Loading…
Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases
To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Radiation and environmental biophysics 2024-03, Vol.63 (1), p.47-57 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-79ff72d9f1d4c980031495aff45c03961e0431570bd8ef445cd1f3f45b91747d3 |
| container_end_page | 57 |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 47 |
| container_title | Radiation and environmental biophysics |
| container_volume | 63 |
| creator | Balasubramanian, S. Shobana, M. K. Anabalagan, D. Thanasekar, P. Joel, S. Chaudhary, Prekshi |
| description | To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT, VMAT, and HT techniques. In this retrospective study, the treatment data of 20 BM patients who typically received whole brain radiation with SIB treatment were used. Prescription doses of 30 Gy and 36 Gy was delivered in 10 fractions for WBRT and SIB, respectively. Niemierko and LKB models were applied for calculating TCP and NTCP. All the plans were evaluated for the RTOG 0933 protocol criteria and found acceptable. Additionally, the homogeneity of the PTV boost is 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.1 ± 0.04, and 0.08 ± 0.02 for IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively (
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00411-023-01052-1 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2912524620</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2912524620</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-79ff72d9f1d4c980031495aff45c03961e0431570bd8ef445cd1f3f45b91747d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kVFr1TAUx4Mo7jr9Aj5IwBcfrJ6T5LY3j2M6HWwIMsW3krbJbUba1CRl7IP6fZbebhN8EEICOb_8cpI_Ia8RPiBA9TECCMQCGC8AYcsKfEI2KDgrGEj5lGyAAxYlF7-OyIsYrwGwKkv5nBzxHUqRHRvy55OPdtAp2JaqsaNBddY31ju_t61ytPXDpIKNfqTe0PPL71fv6c_LkzwvdK_dgUp-8KnXQU23dHJqHO24p0m3_Wh_zzpSO9LeTpNvVbY5GhdlJm567zRtgsr1w8UPjhubepr7ml1So_bzYkh6H1TSHW28j4kaH-hSt9OjIj9DxTx0fEmeGeWifnW_HpMfZ5-vTr8WF9--nJ-eXBQtZ2UqKmlMxTppsBOt3AFwFHKrjBHbFrgsUYPguK2g6XbaiLzboeG52kisRNXxY_Ju9U7BLw9N9WBjq51bu66ZRLZlomSQ0bf_oNd-DmPuLlM5Ro5c8kyxlWqDjzFoU0_BDirc1gj1Enq9hl7n0OtD6DXmQ2_u1XMz6O7xyEPKGeArEKfl33X4e_d_tHc95bxh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2941131393</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Balasubramanian, S. ; Shobana, M. K. ; Anabalagan, D. ; Thanasekar, P. ; Joel, S. ; Chaudhary, Prekshi</creator><creatorcontrib>Balasubramanian, S. ; Shobana, M. K. ; Anabalagan, D. ; Thanasekar, P. ; Joel, S. ; Chaudhary, Prekshi</creatorcontrib><description>To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT, VMAT, and HT techniques. In this retrospective study, the treatment data of 20 BM patients who typically received whole brain radiation with SIB treatment were used. Prescription doses of 30 Gy and 36 Gy was delivered in 10 fractions for WBRT and SIB, respectively. Niemierko and LKB models were applied for calculating TCP and NTCP. All the plans were evaluated for the RTOG 0933 protocol criteria and found acceptable. Additionally, the homogeneity of the PTV boost is 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.1 ± 0.04, and 0.08 ± 0.02 for IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively (
P
< 0.05). The percentage of TCP for the PTV boost was 99.99 ± 0.003, 99.98 ± 0.004, and 99.99 ± 0.002 of IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively, (
P
< 0.005). The NTCP value of the lenses was higher with the VMAT plan as compared to IMRT and HT Plans. The hippocampal NTCP values are equal in all three planning proficiencies. The techniques like IMRT, VMAT, and HT can reduce the dose received by hippocampus to the dosimetric threshold during the delivery of WBRT with hippocampal sparing and can simultaneously boost multiple metastases. Overall, the high-quality dose distribution, TCP, and NTCP comparison between all three planning techniques show that the HT technique has better results when compared to the VMAT and IMRT techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-634X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1432-2099</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00411-023-01052-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38194100</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Biological and Medical Physics ; Biophysics ; Brain ; Brain cancer ; Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Brain Neoplasms - secondary ; Dosimetry ; Ecosystems ; Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection ; Environmental Physics ; Hippocampus ; Homogeneity ; Humans ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis ; Organs at Risk ; Physics ; Physics and Astronomy ; Planning ; Radiation therapy ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Retrospective Studies ; TCP (protocol)</subject><ispartof>Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2024-03, Vol.63 (1), p.47-57</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-79ff72d9f1d4c980031495aff45c03961e0431570bd8ef445cd1f3f45b91747d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38194100$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Balasubramanian, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shobana, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anabalagan, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thanasekar, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joel, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Prekshi</creatorcontrib><title>Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases</title><title>Radiation and environmental biophysics</title><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><description>To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT, VMAT, and HT techniques. In this retrospective study, the treatment data of 20 BM patients who typically received whole brain radiation with SIB treatment were used. Prescription doses of 30 Gy and 36 Gy was delivered in 10 fractions for WBRT and SIB, respectively. Niemierko and LKB models were applied for calculating TCP and NTCP. All the plans were evaluated for the RTOG 0933 protocol criteria and found acceptable. Additionally, the homogeneity of the PTV boost is 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.1 ± 0.04, and 0.08 ± 0.02 for IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively (
P
< 0.05). The percentage of TCP for the PTV boost was 99.99 ± 0.003, 99.98 ± 0.004, and 99.99 ± 0.002 of IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively, (
P
< 0.005). The NTCP value of the lenses was higher with the VMAT plan as compared to IMRT and HT Plans. The hippocampal NTCP values are equal in all three planning proficiencies. The techniques like IMRT, VMAT, and HT can reduce the dose received by hippocampus to the dosimetric threshold during the delivery of WBRT with hippocampal sparing and can simultaneously boost multiple metastases. Overall, the high-quality dose distribution, TCP, and NTCP comparison between all three planning techniques show that the HT technique has better results when compared to the VMAT and IMRT techniques.</description><subject>Biological and Medical Physics</subject><subject>Biophysics</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain cancer</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection</subject><subject>Environmental Physics</subject><subject>Hippocampus</subject><subject>Homogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</subject><subject>Organs at Risk</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Physics and Astronomy</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>TCP (protocol)</subject><issn>0301-634X</issn><issn>1432-2099</issn><issn>1432-2099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kVFr1TAUx4Mo7jr9Aj5IwBcfrJ6T5LY3j2M6HWwIMsW3krbJbUba1CRl7IP6fZbebhN8EEICOb_8cpI_Ia8RPiBA9TECCMQCGC8AYcsKfEI2KDgrGEj5lGyAAxYlF7-OyIsYrwGwKkv5nBzxHUqRHRvy55OPdtAp2JaqsaNBddY31ju_t61ytPXDpIKNfqTe0PPL71fv6c_LkzwvdK_dgUp-8KnXQU23dHJqHO24p0m3_Wh_zzpSO9LeTpNvVbY5GhdlJm567zRtgsr1w8UPjhubepr7ml1So_bzYkh6H1TSHW28j4kaH-hSt9OjIj9DxTx0fEmeGeWifnW_HpMfZ5-vTr8WF9--nJ-eXBQtZ2UqKmlMxTppsBOt3AFwFHKrjBHbFrgsUYPguK2g6XbaiLzboeG52kisRNXxY_Ju9U7BLw9N9WBjq51bu66ZRLZlomSQ0bf_oNd-DmPuLlM5Ro5c8kyxlWqDjzFoU0_BDirc1gj1Enq9hl7n0OtD6DXmQ2_u1XMz6O7xyEPKGeArEKfl33X4e_d_tHc95bxh</recordid><startdate>20240301</startdate><enddate>20240301</enddate><creator>Balasubramanian, S.</creator><creator>Shobana, M. K.</creator><creator>Anabalagan, D.</creator><creator>Thanasekar, P.</creator><creator>Joel, S.</creator><creator>Chaudhary, Prekshi</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240301</creationdate><title>Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases</title><author>Balasubramanian, S. ; Shobana, M. K. ; Anabalagan, D. ; Thanasekar, P. ; Joel, S. ; Chaudhary, Prekshi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-79ff72d9f1d4c980031495aff45c03961e0431570bd8ef445cd1f3f45b91747d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Biological and Medical Physics</topic><topic>Biophysics</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain cancer</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection</topic><topic>Environmental Physics</topic><topic>Hippocampus</topic><topic>Homogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</topic><topic>Organs at Risk</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Physics and Astronomy</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>TCP (protocol)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Balasubramanian, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shobana, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anabalagan, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thanasekar, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joel, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Prekshi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Balasubramanian, S.</au><au>Shobana, M. K.</au><au>Anabalagan, D.</au><au>Thanasekar, P.</au><au>Joel, S.</au><au>Chaudhary, Prekshi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases</atitle><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle><stitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</stitle><addtitle>Radiat Environ Biophys</addtitle><date>2024-03-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>47</spage><epage>57</epage><pages>47-57</pages><issn>0301-634X</issn><issn>1432-2099</issn><eissn>1432-2099</eissn><abstract>To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT, VMAT, and HT techniques. In this retrospective study, the treatment data of 20 BM patients who typically received whole brain radiation with SIB treatment were used. Prescription doses of 30 Gy and 36 Gy was delivered in 10 fractions for WBRT and SIB, respectively. Niemierko and LKB models were applied for calculating TCP and NTCP. All the plans were evaluated for the RTOG 0933 protocol criteria and found acceptable. Additionally, the homogeneity of the PTV boost is 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.1 ± 0.04, and 0.08 ± 0.02 for IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively (
P
< 0.05). The percentage of TCP for the PTV boost was 99.99 ± 0.003, 99.98 ± 0.004, and 99.99 ± 0.002 of IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively, (
P
< 0.005). The NTCP value of the lenses was higher with the VMAT plan as compared to IMRT and HT Plans. The hippocampal NTCP values are equal in all three planning proficiencies. The techniques like IMRT, VMAT, and HT can reduce the dose received by hippocampus to the dosimetric threshold during the delivery of WBRT with hippocampal sparing and can simultaneously boost multiple metastases. Overall, the high-quality dose distribution, TCP, and NTCP comparison between all three planning techniques show that the HT technique has better results when compared to the VMAT and IMRT techniques.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>38194100</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00411-023-01052-1</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0301-634X |
| ispartof | Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2024-03, Vol.63 (1), p.47-57 |
| issn | 0301-634X 1432-2099 1432-2099 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2912524620 |
| source | Springer Nature |
| subjects | Biological and Medical Physics Biophysics Brain Brain cancer Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy Brain Neoplasms - secondary Dosimetry Ecosystems Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection Environmental Physics Hippocampus Homogeneity Humans Metastases Metastasis Monitoring/Environmental Analysis Organs at Risk Physics Physics and Astronomy Planning Radiation therapy Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Retrospective Studies TCP (protocol) |
| title | Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T09%3A53%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dosimetric%20and%20radiobiological%20comparison%20of%20IMRT,%20VMAT,%20and%20helical%20tomotherapy%20planning%20techniques%20in%20hippocampal%20sparing%20whole%20brain%20radiotherapy%20with%20simultaneous%20integrated%20boost%20for%20multiple%20brain%20metastases&rft.jtitle=Radiation%20and%20environmental%20biophysics&rft.au=Balasubramanian,%20S.&rft.date=2024-03-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=47&rft.epage=57&rft.pages=47-57&rft.issn=0301-634X&rft.eissn=1432-2099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00411-023-01052-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2912524620%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-79ff72d9f1d4c980031495aff45c03961e0431570bd8ef445cd1f3f45b91747d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2941131393&rft_id=info:pmid/38194100&rfr_iscdi=true |