banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Optimization of normalized prescription isodose selection for stereotactic body radiation therapy: Conventional vs robotic linac
  Read Online HTML
  Download PDF
1. B. K. Chang and R. D. Timmerman, “Stereotactic body radiation therapy: A comprehensive review,” Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(6), 637644 (2007).
2. C. Yu, G. Jozsef, M. L. J. Apuzzo, and Z. Petrovich, “Dosimetric comparison of CyberKnife with other radiosurgical modalities for an ellipsoidal target,” Neurosurgery 53(5), 11551162 (2003).
3. W. P. Segars, M. Mahesh, T. J. Beck, E. C. Frey, and B. M. W. Tsui, “Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom,” Med. Phys. 35(8), 38003808 (2008).
4. J. H. Heinzerling, J. F. Anderson, L. Papiez, T. Boike, S. Chien, G. Zhang, R. Abdulrahman, and R. Timmerman, “Four-dimensional computed tomography scan analysis of tumor and organ motion at varying levels of abdominal compression during stereotactic treatment of lung and liver,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 70(5), 15711578 (2008).
5. R. Timmerman, L. Papiez, R. McGarry, L. Likes, C. DesRosiers, S. Frost, and M. Williams, “Extracranial stereotactic radioablation: Results of a phase I study in medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer,” Chest 124(5), 19461955 (2003).
6. C. Ozhasoglu, C. B. Saw, H. C. Chen, S. Burton, K. Komanduri, N. J. Yue, S. M. Huq, and D. E. Heron, “Synchrony: CyberKnife respiratory compensation technology,” Med. Dosim. 33(2), 117123 (2008).
7. J. J. Poll, M. S. Hoogeman, J. B. Prevost, J. J. Nuyttens, P. C. Levendag, and B. J. Heijmen, “Reducing monitor units for robotic radiosurgery by optimized use of multiple collimators,” Med. Phys. 35(6), 22942299 (2008).
8. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, RTOG 0813: Seamless phase I/II study of stereotactic lung radiotherapy (SBRT) for early stage, centrally located, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in medically inoperable patients, 2012 (available URL: http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study=0813).
9. R. Timmerman and F. Lohr, “Normal tissue dose constraints applied in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy,” in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, edited by B. D. Kavanagh and R. D. Timmerman (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York, 2004), pp. 2937.
10. U. Ricardi, A. R. Filippi, A. Guarneri, F. R. Giglioli, C. Mantovani, C. Fiandra, S. Anglesio, and R. Ragona, “Dosimetric predictors of radiation-induced lung injury in stereotactic body radiation therapy,” Acta Oncol. 48(4), 571577 (2009).
11. C. Burman, G. J. Kutcher, B. Emami, and M. Goitein, “Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 21(1), 123135 (1991).
12. C. Park, L. Papiez, S. Zhang, M. Story, and R. D. Timmerman, “Universal survival curve and single fraction equivalent dose: Useful tools in understanding potency of ablative radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 70(3), 847852 (2008).
13. B. M. Wennberg, P. Baumann, G. Gagliardi, J. Nyman, N. Drugge, M. Hoyer, A. Traberg, K. Nilsson, E. Morhed, L. Ekberg, L. Wittgren, J. A. Lund, N. Levin, C. Sederholm, R. Lewensohn, and I. Lax, “NTCP modelling of lung toxicity after SBRT comparing the universal survival curve and the linear quadratic model for fractionation correction,” Acta Oncol. 50(4), 518527 (2011).
14. T. E. Schefter, B. D. Kavanagh, R. D. Timmerman, H. R. Cardenes, A. Baron, and L. E. Gaspar, “A phase I trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver metastases,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 62(5), 13711378 (2005).
15. C. C. Olsen, J. Welsh, B. D. Kavanagh, W. Franklin, M. McCarter, H. R. Cardenes, L. E. Gaspar, and T. E. Schefter, “Microscopic and macroscopic tumor and parenchymal effects of liver stereotactic body radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 73(5), 14141424 (2009).
16. L. A. Dawson, C. Eccles, and T. Craig, “Individualized image guided iso-NTCP based liver cancer SBRT,” Acta Oncol. 45(7), 856864 (2006).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Although modern technology has allowed for target dose escalation by minimizing normal tissue dose, the dose delivered to a tumor and surrounding tissues still depends largely on the inherent characteristics of the radiation delivery platform. This work aims to determine the optimal prescription isodose line that minimizes normal tissue irradiation for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for a conventional linear accelerator and a robotic delivery platform.

Spherical targets with diameters of 10, 20, and 30 mm were constructed in the lungs and liver of a computer based digital torso phantom which simulates respiratory and cardiac motion. Normal tissue contours included normal lung, normal liver, and a concentric 10 mm shell of normal tissue extending from the spherical target surface. For linac planning, noncoplanar, nonopposing three dimensional (3D) conformal beams were designed, and variable prescription isodose lines were achieved by varying the MLC block margin. For CyberKnife planning, variable prescription isodose lines were achieved by inverse planning. True 4D dose calculations were used for the moving target and surrounding tissue based on each of ten phases of a 4D CT dataset. Doses of 60 Gy in three fractions were prescribed to cover 95% of the target tumor. Commonly used conformality, dosimetric, and radiobiological indices for lung and liver SBRT were used to compare different plans and determine the optimally prescribed isodose line for each treatment platform.

For linac plans, the average optimal prescription isodose line based on all indices evaluated occurred between 59% and 69% for lung tumors and between 67% and 77% for liver tumors depending on the tumor size. CyberKnife plans had average optimal prescription isodose lines occurring between 40% and 48% for lung tumors and between 41% and 42% depending on the tumor size. However, prescription isodose lines under 50% are not advised to prevent large heterogeneous dose distributions within the target.

The choice of prescription isodose line was shown to have a significant impact on parameters commonly used as constraints for lung and liver SBRT treatment planning for both linac-based and CyberKnife delivery platforms. By methodically choosing the prescription isodose line, normal tissue toxicities from SBRT may be reduced.


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address

Oops! This section does not exist...

Use the links on this page to find existing content.

752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Optimization of normalized prescription isodose selection for stereotactic body radiation therapy: Conventional vs robotic linac