ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine whether SBRT of spinal metastasis using a dedicated treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered with a gantry-based LINAC could provide plans of similar quality to the Cyberknife technology. Additional comparison was also done with other commercial TPS used for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty Spine SBRT patients, previously treated in our institution with CyberKnife (Accuray, Sunnyvale) using Multiplan TPS, were replanned in VMAT with an dedicated TPS (Elements Spine SRS, Brainlab, Munich) and our clinical TPS (Monaco, Elekta LTD, Stockholm), using exactly the same arc geometry. The comparison was done by assessing differences in dose delivered to PTV, CTV and spinal cord, calculating modulation complexity scores (MCS) and performing quality control (QA) of the plans. RESULTS: Regardless of the vertebra level, in general, no statistical difference was found in PTV coverage between all TPS. Conversely, PTV and CTV D50% were found significantly higher for the dedicated TPS compared to others. In addition, the dedicated TPS also resulted in better gradient index (GI) than clinical VMAT TPS, whatever the vertebral level, and better GI than Cyberknife TPS for the thoracic level only. The D2% to the spinal cord was generally significantly lower with the dedicated TPS compared with others. No significant difference was found in the MCS between both VMAT TPS. All QA were clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: The Elements Spine SRS TPS offers very effective and user-friendly semi-automated planning tools and is secure and promising for gantry-based LINAC spinal SBRT.
Subject(s)
Radiosurgery , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Spinal Neoplasms , Humans , Radiosurgery/methods , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Spinal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Spinal Neoplasms/secondary , Spinal Neoplasms/surgery , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Spine , SoftwareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Quantification of dynamic and static parameters extracted from 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine (18F-DOPA, FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) plays a critical role for glioma assessment. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of point-spread function (PSF) reconstruction on these quantitative parameters. METHODS: Fourteen patients with untreated gliomas and investigated with FDOPA PET/CT were analyzed. The distribution of the 14 cases was as follows: 6 astrocytomas-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; 2 oligodendrogliomas/1p19q-codeleted-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; and 6 isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild-type glioblastomas. A 0-20-min dynamic images (8×15, 2×30, 2×60, and 3×300 s post-injection) and a 0-20-min static image were reconstructed with and without PSF. Tumoral volumes-of-interest were generated on all of the PET series and the background volumes-of-interest were generated on the 0-20-min static image with and without PSF. Static parameters (SUVmax and SUVmean) of the tumoral and the background volumes-of-interest and kinetic parameters (K1 and k2) of the tumoral volumes-of-interest extracted from using full kinetic analysis were provided. PSF and non-PSF quantitative parameters values were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-three tumor volumes-of-interest and 14 background volumes-of-interest were analyzed. PSF images provided higher tumor SUVmax than non-PSF images for 23/33 VOIs [median SUVmax =3.0 (range, 1.4-10.2) with PSF vs. 2.7 (range, 1.4-9.1) without PSF; P<0.001] and higher tumor SUVmean for 13/33 volumes-of-interest [median SUVmean =2.0 (range, 0.8-7.6) with PSF vs. 2.0 (range, 0.8-7.4) without PSF; P=0.002]. K1 and k2 were significantly lower with PSF than without PSF [respectively median K1 =0.077 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.043-0.445 mL/ccm/min) with PSF vs. 0.101 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.055-0.578 mL/ccm/min) without PSF; P<0.001 and median k2 =0.070 min-1 (range, 0.025-0.146 min-1) with PSF vs. 0.081 min-1 (range, 0.027-0.180 min-1) without PSF; P<0.001]. Background SUVmax and SUVmean were statistically unaffected [respectively median SUVmax =1.7 (range, 1.3-2.0) with PSF vs. 1.7 (range, 1.3-1.9) without PSF; P=0.346 and median SUVmean =1.5 (range, 1.0-1.8) with PSF vs. 1.5 (range, 1.0-1.7) without PSF; P=0.371]. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms that PSF significantly increases tumor activity concentrations measured on PET images. PSF algorithms for quantitative PET/CT analysis should be used with caution, especially for quantification of kinetic parameters.
