Program Information
Improvement of Gamma Knife Treatment Planning Through Tumor Control Probability for Metastatic Brain Tumors
Z Huang1*, Y Feng1 , T Liu2 , S Lo3 , C Luo3 , K Rasmussen1 , R Wang4 , J Grecula4 , N Mayr5 , W Yuh5 , (1) East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, (2) Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, (3) Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, (4) Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, (5) University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Presentations
SU-E-T-471 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose:The dose–volume histogram (DVH) has been normally accepted as a tool for treatment plan evaluation. However, spatial information is lacking in DVH. As a supplement to the DVH in three-dimensional treatment planning, the differential DVH (DDVH) provides the spatial variation, the size and magnitude of the different dose regions within a region of interest, which can be incorporated into tumor control probability model. This study was to provide a method in evaluating and improving Gamma Knife treatment planning.
Methods:10 patients with brain metastases from different primary tumors including melanoma (#1,#4,#5, #10), breast cancer (#2), prostate cancer (#3) and lung cancer (#6-9) were analyzed. By using Leksell GammaPlan software, two plans were prepared for each patient. Special attention was given to the DDVHs that were different for different plans and were used for a comparison between two plans. Dose distribution inside target and tumor control probability (TCP) based on DDVH were calculated, where cell density and radiobiological parameters were adopted from literature. The plans were compared based on DVH, DDVH and TCP.
Results:Using DVH, the coverage and selectivity were the same between plans for 10 patients. DDVH were different between two plans for each patient. The paired t-test showed no significant difference in TCP between the two plans. For brain metastases from melanoma (#1, #4-5), breast cancer (#2) and lung cancer (#6-8), the difference in TCP was less than 5%. But the difference in TCP was about 6.5% for patient #3 with the metastasis from prostate cancer, 10.1% and 178.7% for two patients (#9-10) with metastasis from lung cancer.
Conclusion:Although DVH provides average dose–volume information, DDVH provides differential dose–volume information with respect to different regions inside the tumor. TCP provides radiobiological information and adds additional information on improving treatment planning as well as adaptive radiotherapy. Further clinical validation is necessary.
Contact Email: