Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.4.265

Differences in Target Volume Delineation Using Typical Radiosurgery Planning System  

Han, Su Chul (Radiological Cancer Medicine, University of Science and Technology)
Lee, Dong Joon (Department of Neurosurgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, College of Medicine, Inje University)
Publication Information
Progress in Medical Physics / v.24, no.4, 2013 , pp. 265-270 More about this Journal
Abstract
Correct target volume delineation is an important part of radiosurgery treatment planning process. We designed head phantom and performed target delineation to evaluate the volume differences due to radiosurgery treatment planning systems and image acquisition system, CT/MR. Delineated mean target volume from CT scan images was $2.23{\pm}0.08cm^3$ on BrainSCAN (NOVALS), $2.13{\pm}0.07cm^3$ on Leksell gamma plan (Gamma Knife) and $2.24{\pm}0.10cm^3$ on Multi plan (Cyber Knife). For MR images, $2.08{\pm}0.06cm^3$ on BrainSCAN, $1.94{\pm}0.05cm^3$ on Leksell gamma plan and $2.15{\pm}0.06cm^3$ on Multi plan. As a result, Differences of delineated mean target volume due to radiotherapy planning system was 3% to 6%. And overall mean target volume from CT scan images was 6.36% larger than those of MR scan images.
Keywords
Target volume delineation; Radiosurgery planning system;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Weltens C, Menten J, Feron M, et al: Interobserver variation in gross tumor volume delineation of brain tumor on computed tomography and impact of magnetic resonance imaging. Radiotherapy & Oncology 60(1):49-59 (2001)   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Breen SL, Publicover J, De Silva S, et al: Intraobserver and Interobserver variability in GTV Delineation on FDG-PETCT images of Head and Neck Cancers. Int J RadiaOncol-BiolPhys 68(3):763-770 (2007)   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Geets X, Daisne JF, Tomsej M, et al: Impact of the type of imaging modality on target volumes delineation and dose distribution in Pharyngo-laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison between pre- and per treatment studies. Radiotherapy & Oncology 78(3):291-297 (2006)   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Ackerly T, Andrews J, Ball D, et al: Discrepancies in volume calculations between different radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 26(2):91-93 (2003)
5 이경남, 이동준, 서태석: 자기공명영상기반 겔 선량측정법을 이용한 3차원적 목표 중심점 점검기술. 의학물리 22(1):35-41 (2011)
6 Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al: Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 36(9):4197-4212 (2009)   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, et al: Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 21(4):581-618 (1994)
8 Robar JL, Clark BG: The use of radiographic film for linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgical dosimetry. Med Phys 26(10): 2144-2150 (1999)   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Mazzara GP, Velthuizen RP, Pearlman JL, et al: Brain tumor target volume determination for radiation treatment planning through automated MRI segmentation. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 59(1):300-312 (2004)   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Rasch C, Keus R, Pameijer FA, et al: The potential impact of CT-MRI matching on tumor volume delineation in advanced head and neck cancer. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 39(4):841-848 (1997)   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, et al: Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined Non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: The impact of 18FDG-hybrid pet fusion. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 51(4):923-931 (2001)   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Kouwenhoven E, Giezen M, Struikmans H: Measuring the similarity of target volume delineations independent of the number of observers. Phys Med Bio 54(9):2863-2873 (2009)   DOI   ScienceOn