Paper detail

Direct Plan Comparison of RapidArc and CyberKnife for Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

We compared the treatment planning performance of RapidArc (RA) vs. CyberKnife (CK) for spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Ten patients with spinal lesions who had been treated with CK were re-planned with RA, which consisted of two complete arcs. Computed tomography (CT) and volumetric dose data of CK, generated using the Multiplan (Accuray) treatment planning system (TPS) and the Ray-Trace algorithm, were imported to Varian Eclipse TPS in Dicom format, and the data were compared with the RA plan using analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation. The optimized dose priorities for both CK and RA plans were similar for all patients. The highest priority was to provide enough dose coverage to the planned target volume (PTV) while limiting the maximum dose to the spinal cord. Plan quality was evaluated with respect to PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), high-dose spillage, intermediate-dose spillage (R50% and D2cm), and maximum dose to the spinal cord, which are criteria recommended by RTOG 0631 spine and 0915 lung SBRT protocols. The mean CI +/- SD values of PTV were 1.11 +/- 0.03 and 1.17 +/- 0.10 for RA and CK (p = 0.02), respectively. On average, the maximum dose delivered to the spinal cord in CK plans was approximately 11.6% higher than in RA plans, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). High-dose spillages were 0.86% and 2.26% for RA and CK (p = 0.203), respectively. Intermediate-dose spillage characterized by D2cm was lower for RA than for CK; however, R50% was not statistically different. Even though both systems can create highly conformal volumetric dose distributions, the current study shows that RA demonstrates lower high- and intermediate-dose spillage than CK. Therefore, RA plans for spinal SBRT may be superior to CK.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.