English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) can be delivered with the robot-assisted CyberKnife (CK) system or on a linear accelerator using dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric arc radiotherapy (VMAT). This retrospective study was performed to determine whether CK offers better dose distribution than IMRT and/or VMAT. Materials and methods Treatment plans for three techniques were prepared using the same treatment parameters (36.35 Gy, 7.25 Gy/fr). We evaluated target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gamma index (GI), and organs at risk (OAR) constraints. Results The mean planning target volume (PTV) dose for CK (39.58 Gy) was significantly greater than VMAT or IMRT (both 36.25 Gy). However, CK resulted in a wider dose range (31.48 to 45.89 Gy)  vs . VMAT and IMRT (34.6–38.76 Gy). The mean dose to the rectum (V36Gy, mm 3 ) was significantly lower (p &lt; 0.001) in the CK plans (219.78  vs . 519.59 and 422.62, respectively). The mean bladder dose (V37Gy, mm 3 ) was significantly greater for CK (3256  vs . 1090.75 for VMAT and 4.5 for IMRT (p &lt; 0.001). CK yielded significantly better CI (1.07  vs . 1.17 and 1.25 for VMAT and IMRT, respectively; p &lt; 0.01) and HI values (1.27  vs . 1.07 and 1.04; p &lt; 0.01). GI values for the δd = 3mm, δ% = 3% criteria were 99.86 (VMAT), 99.07 (IMRT) and 99.99 (CK). For δd = 2mm, δ% = 2%, the corresponding values were 98.3, 93.35, and 97.12, respectively. Conclusions For most variables, CK was superior to both VMAT and IMRT. However, dynamic IMRT techniques, especially VMAT, do not differ significantly from CK plans and are therefore acceptable alternatives to CyberKnife.

Does CyberKnife improve dose distribution versus IMRT and VMAT on a linear accelerator in low-risk prostate cancer?