International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Physics contributionStereotactic radiosurgery XVI: Isodosimetric comparison of photon stereotactic radiosurgery techniques (gamma knife vs. micromultileaf collimator linear accelerator) for acoustic neuroma—and potential clinical importance
Introduction
With an annual incidence of approximately 1 per 100,000 of the population, acoustic neuroma accounts for 8% of all new tumors presenting to a neurosurgical referral practice. Benign tumors arising almost invariably from the vestibular branch of the eighth nerve, the tumors present either as extracanalicular, cerebellopontine angle growths, intracanalicular growths, or a mixture. The growth rate may be slow with cross-dimensional measurements increasing by no more than 1 mm per year or even less. Surgical excision was standard treatment, but in recent years, an increasing number of clinical publications concerning focal radiation therapy have established this as a standard alternative. In a recent publication from Pittsburgh, 5-year results were reported on 190 patients treated by stereotactic radiation therapy utilizing the gamma knife (Elekta Instruments AB, Linköping, Sweden) (1). The actuarial 5-year clinical tumor control rate was 97%, and the rates for new facial weakness, facial numbness, and hearing preservation were 1.1%, 2.6%, and 71%, respectively (1). In a previous publication from the same institution, the authors had concluded that, when compared to microsurgery, stereotactic radiation therapy proved to be a very effective alternative that was less morbid in terms of posttherapy complications and less costly in terms of finance and requirement of in-patient hospital time (2). Not surprisingly, there is an increase in the number of patients electing for radiation therapy.
Patients with neurofibromatosis 2 and a bilateral predisposition to acoustic neuromata, or those sporadic cases with hearing impairment in the ear contralateral to the acoustic neuroma, provide a population of patients for whom hearing preservation is particularly important.
A perceived disadvantage of the gamma knife technology is that it is necessarily a single-session therapy, and the overlapping multiple “shots” create a high internal dose gradient; this last feature leads to “double dose hot spots” at various sites (unpredictable) within the target volume; within the internal auditory canal, this can lead to potential morbidity to the “innocent bystander” acoustic nerve 3, 4. However, when it comes to published long-term control of acoustic neuroma by focal radiation therapy, the best documented results come from gamma knife institutions 1, 5.
When consideration of hearing preservation is made, the comparison of the two different photon stereotactic radiation therapy methods becomes relevant. Early publications from our unit (6) and that of others (7) compared 1990s linear accelerator methodology to that of gamma knife and drew attention to the internal dose gradient and fractionation issues. With regard to conformity, it was clear that the gamma knife was superior, and the ability to accentuate further the “dose falloff” at one edge of the treatment volume was a desirable characteristic and an advantage of the gamma knife. However, since that time, the introduction of the micromultileaf collimator systems with fixed or dynamic arc methodology has considerably enhanced the conformity of linac-based stereotactic systems, and the old comparisons have become outdated. In this article, we compare modern linear accelerator isodosimetry for stereotactic radiation therapy of acoustic neuroma with gamma knife technology and discuss the clinical relevance of the differences between the two techniques.
Section snippets
Methods and materials
Seven consecutive acoustic neuroma patients were recruited for this study, to give a total of 8 target volumes (1 patient having bilateral neuromas). By chance, all the neuromas studied were right sided, except the bilateral case. This did not affect the results and subsequent conclusions of this study as the planning of left- or right-sided acoustic neuromas is symmetric about the patient midline. In this study, the bilateral acoustic neuromas were treated as if they were from different
Results
Dose–volume histograms of the target volume and the brainstem of Patient 6 for all three techniques are given in Fig. 2, Fig. 3. The numeric values derived from each patient's DVHs for the comparison parameters are then given in the following tables: Table 3 gives the conformity index, Table 4 gives the minimum dose delivered to the target as defined by the dose level that covers 99.5% of the target volume, Table 5 gives the maximum dose delivered to the brainstem in each case, and Table 6
Discussion and conclusions
The published data on radiosurgery treatment for acoustic neuroma most surely validate the treatment by the gamma knife 1, 2. With the excellent isodosimetric conformity of this technique as applied to the acoustic neuroma and the ablative assuredness of this technique, which “packs” a high dose within the targeted contours (exemplified in this article by a high MD:PD ratio or as a high internal dose gradient), gamma knife technology continues to offer a very good option for treatment. This
References (31)
Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for acoustic neuromas
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2002)What is the optimal dose and fractionation for stereotactic irradiation of acoustic neuromas
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2002)- et al.
Stereotactic radiosurgery XClinical isodosimetry of gamma knife versus linear accelerator X-knife for pituitary and acoustic tumors
Clin Oncol
(1999) - et al.
Comparison of radiosurgery treatment modalities based on physical dose distributions
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1998) A non-invasive, relocatable stereotactic frame for fractionated radiotherapy and multiple imaging
Radiother Oncol
(1991)- et al.
Relocatable frame for stereotactic external beam radiotherapy
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1991) - et al.
Physics of gamma knife approach on convergent beams in stereotactic radiosurgery
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1990) - et al.
Dosimetric comparison of three photon radiosurgery techniques for an elongated ellipsoid target
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1999) - et al.
A comparison of arc-based and static mini-multileaf collimator-based radiosurgery treatment plans
Radiother Oncol
(1997) - et al.
Dynamic arc radiosurgery field shapingA comparison with static field conformal and noncoplanar arcs
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2001)
Relocatable frame for stereotactic external beam radiotherapy
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
A non-invasive, relocatable stereotactic frame for fractionated radiotherapy and multiple imaging
Radiother Oncol
Quality assurance in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy
Radiother Oncol
The measurement of linear accelerator isocenter motion using a three-micrometer device and an adjustable pointer
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Three-dimensional accuracy and interfractional reproducibility of patient fixation and positioning using a stereotactic head mask system
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Cited by (38)
Treatment for vestibular schwannoma: Systematic review and single arm meta-analysis
2022, American Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Medicine and SurgeryEvaluating competing and emerging technologies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and other advanced radiotherapy techniques
2015, Clinical OncologyCitation Excerpt :These values can be easily compared between different treatment plans, as can other values, such as dose to organs at risk and overall treatment time. There have been a number of dosimetric comparisons published in the radiosurgery literature, using some of these measures to compare performance across different treatment platforms [14–18]. Some of the earlier publications can be criticised for using different planning targets for each system, or geometrical shapes rather than irregular tumour contours.
Comparative clinical dosimetry with X-knife and gamma knife
2012, Physica MedicaLINAC-Based Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Parasagittal, Skull-Base, and Convexity Meningiomas
2010, Meningiomas: Expert Consult - Online and Print