WE‐D‐BRA‐03: Cyberknife Experience

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to show in selected case studies where differential dose planning is used in Cyberknife treatments, and which challenges are associated with each approach. Method and Materials: Three case studies were selected to demonstrate different situations were differential dose planning would be used in Cyberknife SRS. Case1: Multiple, anatomically close cranial lesions of varying sizes. As experience with Gammaknife SRS has shown, the risk of complications in treating brain metastasis is correlated with dose and lesion size. Lesions larger than 2 cm in diameter are typically treated with a lower dose. In the situation were multiple lesions of different size are located closely together in the brain, creating separate treatment plans on the Cyberknife would lead to longer treatment times, higher whole‐body dose due to scatter and leakage, and difficulty to asses multiple plan dose overlays. Case 2: The second situation involved mostly head and neck cancers where the GTV and CTV are treated to different doses as a boost after conventional IMRT treatments. Typically, the GTV encompasses the PET positive areas. Around the GTV, a CTV enclosing the microscopic extension of the disease as determined by the physician based on the case history. Case 3: Unusual cases. A patient with pituitary adenoma was also diagnosed with Graves disease. Because of the proximity of the lesion and the orbital muscles affected by Graves disease, the tumor and orbital muscles were treated at the same time with different dose. Results: All three categories could be planned to the physicians' satisfaction. In case 1 patients, attention has to be paid to minimizing the dose to the healthy brain between the lesions. This can be achieved by using tuning structures or tuning shells around the tumors. In Case 2, the limiting factor is the dose fall‐off outside the GTV. A fraction of the CTV will be treated at a higher dose than planned. In case 3, the combined planning of the Graves disease and the pituitary adenoma achieved good dose sparing of the optic apparatus. Conclusion: The Cyberknife software is very flexible and allows relatively easy planning for complex situations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Graves Disease
Pituitary Neoplasms
Brain
Physicians
Muscles
Equidae
Therapeutics
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Software
Neoplasm Metastasis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

WE‐D‐BRA‐03 : Cyberknife Experience. / Dieterich, Sonja.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a4958b19b059450589505793de822e25,
title = "WE‐D‐BRA‐03: Cyberknife Experience",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to show in selected case studies where differential dose planning is used in Cyberknife treatments, and which challenges are associated with each approach. Method and Materials: Three case studies were selected to demonstrate different situations were differential dose planning would be used in Cyberknife SRS. Case1: Multiple, anatomically close cranial lesions of varying sizes. As experience with Gammaknife SRS has shown, the risk of complications in treating brain metastasis is correlated with dose and lesion size. Lesions larger than 2 cm in diameter are typically treated with a lower dose. In the situation were multiple lesions of different size are located closely together in the brain, creating separate treatment plans on the Cyberknife would lead to longer treatment times, higher whole‐body dose due to scatter and leakage, and difficulty to asses multiple plan dose overlays. Case 2: The second situation involved mostly head and neck cancers where the GTV and CTV are treated to different doses as a boost after conventional IMRT treatments. Typically, the GTV encompasses the PET positive areas. Around the GTV, a CTV enclosing the microscopic extension of the disease as determined by the physician based on the case history. Case 3: Unusual cases. A patient with pituitary adenoma was also diagnosed with Graves disease. Because of the proximity of the lesion and the orbital muscles affected by Graves disease, the tumor and orbital muscles were treated at the same time with different dose. Results: All three categories could be planned to the physicians' satisfaction. In case 1 patients, attention has to be paid to minimizing the dose to the healthy brain between the lesions. This can be achieved by using tuning structures or tuning shells around the tumors. In Case 2, the limiting factor is the dose fall‐off outside the GTV. A fraction of the CTV will be treated at a higher dose than planned. In case 3, the combined planning of the Graves disease and the pituitary adenoma achieved good dose sparing of the optic apparatus. Conclusion: The Cyberknife software is very flexible and allows relatively easy planning for complex situations.",
author = "Sonja Dieterich",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1118/1.2761572",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - WE‐D‐BRA‐03

T2 - Cyberknife Experience

AU - Dieterich, Sonja

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to show in selected case studies where differential dose planning is used in Cyberknife treatments, and which challenges are associated with each approach. Method and Materials: Three case studies were selected to demonstrate different situations were differential dose planning would be used in Cyberknife SRS. Case1: Multiple, anatomically close cranial lesions of varying sizes. As experience with Gammaknife SRS has shown, the risk of complications in treating brain metastasis is correlated with dose and lesion size. Lesions larger than 2 cm in diameter are typically treated with a lower dose. In the situation were multiple lesions of different size are located closely together in the brain, creating separate treatment plans on the Cyberknife would lead to longer treatment times, higher whole‐body dose due to scatter and leakage, and difficulty to asses multiple plan dose overlays. Case 2: The second situation involved mostly head and neck cancers where the GTV and CTV are treated to different doses as a boost after conventional IMRT treatments. Typically, the GTV encompasses the PET positive areas. Around the GTV, a CTV enclosing the microscopic extension of the disease as determined by the physician based on the case history. Case 3: Unusual cases. A patient with pituitary adenoma was also diagnosed with Graves disease. Because of the proximity of the lesion and the orbital muscles affected by Graves disease, the tumor and orbital muscles were treated at the same time with different dose. Results: All three categories could be planned to the physicians' satisfaction. In case 1 patients, attention has to be paid to minimizing the dose to the healthy brain between the lesions. This can be achieved by using tuning structures or tuning shells around the tumors. In Case 2, the limiting factor is the dose fall‐off outside the GTV. A fraction of the CTV will be treated at a higher dose than planned. In case 3, the combined planning of the Graves disease and the pituitary adenoma achieved good dose sparing of the optic apparatus. Conclusion: The Cyberknife software is very flexible and allows relatively easy planning for complex situations.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to show in selected case studies where differential dose planning is used in Cyberknife treatments, and which challenges are associated with each approach. Method and Materials: Three case studies were selected to demonstrate different situations were differential dose planning would be used in Cyberknife SRS. Case1: Multiple, anatomically close cranial lesions of varying sizes. As experience with Gammaknife SRS has shown, the risk of complications in treating brain metastasis is correlated with dose and lesion size. Lesions larger than 2 cm in diameter are typically treated with a lower dose. In the situation were multiple lesions of different size are located closely together in the brain, creating separate treatment plans on the Cyberknife would lead to longer treatment times, higher whole‐body dose due to scatter and leakage, and difficulty to asses multiple plan dose overlays. Case 2: The second situation involved mostly head and neck cancers where the GTV and CTV are treated to different doses as a boost after conventional IMRT treatments. Typically, the GTV encompasses the PET positive areas. Around the GTV, a CTV enclosing the microscopic extension of the disease as determined by the physician based on the case history. Case 3: Unusual cases. A patient with pituitary adenoma was also diagnosed with Graves disease. Because of the proximity of the lesion and the orbital muscles affected by Graves disease, the tumor and orbital muscles were treated at the same time with different dose. Results: All three categories could be planned to the physicians' satisfaction. In case 1 patients, attention has to be paid to minimizing the dose to the healthy brain between the lesions. This can be achieved by using tuning structures or tuning shells around the tumors. In Case 2, the limiting factor is the dose fall‐off outside the GTV. A fraction of the CTV will be treated at a higher dose than planned. In case 3, the combined planning of the Graves disease and the pituitary adenoma achieved good dose sparing of the optic apparatus. Conclusion: The Cyberknife software is very flexible and allows relatively easy planning for complex situations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024778155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024778155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2761572

DO - 10.1118/1.2761572

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024778155

VL - 34

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -