4.4 Article

The role of the concept of biologically effective dose (BED) in treatment planning in radiosurgery

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.008

Keywords

Radiosurgery; Treatment planning; Biological effective dose

Funding

  1. COST Action (SYRA3) [TD1205]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiosurgery (RS) treatment times vary, even for the same prescription dose, due to variations in the collimator size, the number of iso-centres/beams/arcs used and the time gap between each of these exposures. The biologically effective dose (BED) concept, incorporating fast and slow components of repair, was used to show the likely influence of these variables for Gamma Knife patients with Vestibular Schwannomas. Two patients plans were selected, treated with the Model B Gamma Knife, these representing the widest range of treatment variables; iso-centre numbers 3 and 13, overall treatment times 25.4 and 129.6 min, prescription dose 14 Gy. These were compared with 3 cases treated with the Perfexion (R) Gamma Knife. The iso-centre number varied between 11 and 18, treatment time 35.7 - 74.4 min, prescription dose 13 Gy. In the longer Model B Gamma Knife treatment plan the 14 Gy iso-dose was best matched by the 58 Gy(2.47) iso-BED line, although higher and lower BED values were associated with regions on the prescription iso-dose. The equivalent value for the shorter treatment was 85 Gy(2.47). BED volume histograms showed that a BED of 85 Gy(2.47) only covered similar to 65% of the target in the plan with the longer overall treatment time. The corresponding BED values for the 3 cases, treated with the Perfexion (R) Gamma Knife, were 59.5, 68.5 and 71.5 Gy(2.47). In conclusion BED calculations, taking account of the repair of sublethal damage, may indicate the importance of reporting overall time to reflect the biological effectiveness of the total physical dose applied. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available