4.6 Article

Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery on the Gamma Knife Icon: Early Experience From 100 Patients

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 86, 期 4, 页码 509-516

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyz227

关键词

Radiosurgery; Brain neoplasms; Radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The Gamma Knife (GK) Icon (Elekta AB) uses a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner and an infrared camera system to support the delivery of frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). There are limited data on patients treated with frameless GK radiosurgery (GKRS). OBJECTIVE: To describe the early experience, process, technical details, and short-term outcomes with frameless GKRS at our institution. METHODS: We reviewed our patient selection and described the workflow in detail, including image acquisition, treatment planning, mask-based immobilization, stereotactic CBCT localization, registration, treatment, and intrafraction monitoring. Because of the short interval of follow-up, we provide crude rates of local control. RESULTS: Data from 100 patients are reported. Median age is 67 yr old. 56 patients were treated definitively, 21 postoperatively, and 23 had salvage GKRS for recurrence after surgery. Forty-two patients had brain metastases, 26 meningiomas, 16 vestibular schwan-nomas, 9 high-grade gliomas, and 7 other histologies. Median doses to metastases were 20 Gy in 1 fraction (range: 14-21), 24 Gy in 3 fractions (range: 19.5-27), and 25 Gy in 5 fractions (range: 25-30 Gy). Thirteen patients underwent repeat SRS to the same area. Median treatment time was 17.7 min (range: 5.8-61.7). We found an improvement in our workflow and a greater number of patients eligible for GKRS because of the ability to fractionate treatments. CONCLUSION: We report a large cohort of consecutive patients treated with frameless GKRS. We look forward to studies with longer follow-up to provide valuable data on clinical outcomes and to further our understanding of the radiobiology of hypofractionation in the brain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据