Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery
2016
Overview
The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n = 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17±0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27±0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85±0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77±0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35±5.61 cc vs. 10.52±6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046±374 MU vs. 4651±736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24±0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8±0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71±0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27±4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,WILEY,John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subject
/ Animals
/ Breast Neoplasms - secondary
/ Cancer
/ cranial stereotactic radiosurgery
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Melanoma
/ Planning
/ Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods
/ Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods
/ Rats
