Impact of the skull contour definition on Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ radiosurgery treatment planning

Introduction The Gamma Knife ® planning software (TMR 10, Elekta Instruments, AB, Sweden) affords two ways of defining the skull volume, the “historical” one using manual measurements (still perform in some centers) and the new one using image-based skull contours. Our objective was to assess the po...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta neurochirurgica 2020-09, Vol.162 (9), p.2203-2210
Hauptverfasser: Leroy, Henri-Arthur, Tuleasca, Constantin, Zeverino, Michele, Drumez, Elodie, Reyns, Nicolas, Levivier, Marc
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The Gamma Knife ® planning software (TMR 10, Elekta Instruments, AB, Sweden) affords two ways of defining the skull volume, the “historical” one using manual measurements (still perform in some centers) and the new one using image-based skull contours. Our objective was to assess the potential variation of the dose delivery calculation using consecutively in the same patients the two above-mentioned techniques. Materials and methods We included in this self-case-control study, 50 patients, treated with GKRS between July 2016 and January 2017 in Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, distributed among four groups: convexity targets ( n  = 18), deep-seated targets ( n  = 13), vestibular schwannomas ( n  = 11), and trigeminal neuralgias ( n  = 8). Each planning was performed consecutively with the 2 skull definition techniques. For each treatment, we recorded the beam-on time (min), target volume coverage (%), prescription isodose volume (cm 3 ), and maximal dose (Gy) to the nearest organ at risk if relevant, according to each of the 2 skull definition techniques. The image-based contours were performed using CT scan segmentation, based upon a standardized windowing for all patients. Results The median difference in beam-on time between manual measures and image-based contouring was + 0.45 min (IQR; 0.2–0.6) and was statistically significant ( p  
ISSN:0001-6268
0942-0940
DOI:10.1007/s00701-020-04458-8