Leksell GammaPlan version 10.0 preview: performance of the new inverse treatment planning algorithm applied to Gamma Knife surgery for pituitary adenoma

Clinical article

David J. Schlesinger Ph.D., Faisal T. Sayer M.D., M.Sc., Chun-Po Yen M.D., and Jason P. Sheehan M.D., Ph.D.
View More View Less
  • Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

Treatment planning for Gamma Knife surgery has traditionally been a forward planning (FP)–only approach with results that depend significantly on the experience of the user. Leksell GammaPlan version 10.0, currently in beta testing, introduces a new inverse planning (IP) engine that may allow more reproducible results across dosimetrists and individual institutions. In this study the authors compared the FP and IP approaches to Gamma Knife surgery.

Methods

Forty-three patients with pituitary adenomas were evaluated after dose planning was performed using FP and IP treatment approaches. Treatment plans were compared for target coverage, target selectivity, Paddick gradient index, number of isocenters, optic pathways dose, and treatment time. Differences between the forward and inverse treatment plans were evaluated in a statistical fashion.

Results

The IP software generated a dose plan within approximately 10 minutes. The FP approach delivered the prescribed isodose to a larger treatment volume than the IP system (p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) FP and IP coverage indices were 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.85 ± 0.13, respectively (no significant difference). The mean FP and IP gradient indices were 2.78 ± 0.20 and 3.08 ± 0.37, respectively (p < 0.001). The number of isocenters did not appreciably differ between approaches. The maximum doses directed to the optic apparatus for the FP and IP methods were 8.67 ± 1.97 Gy and 12.33 ± 5.86 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The Leksell GammaPlan IP system was easy to operate and provided a reasonable, first approximation dose plan. Particularly in cases in which there are eloquent structures at risk, experience and user-based optimization will be required to achieve an acceptable Gamma Knife dose plan.

Abbreviations used in this paper:

FP = forward planning; GI = gradient index; GKS = Gamma Knife surgery; IP = inverse planning; LGP = Leksell GammaPlan.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Jason P. Sheehan, M.D., Ph.D., Box 800212, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908. email: jsheehan@virginia.edu.
  • 1

    Ferris MC, & Shepard DM, Optimization of gamma knife radiosurgery. Du DZ, , Pardalos PM, & Wang J: DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Sciences. Discrete Mathematical Problems with Medical Applications Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 2000. 55:2744

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Flickinger JC, , Lunsford LD, , Wu A, , Maitz AH, & Kalend AM: Treatment planning for gamma knife radiosurgery with multiple isocenters. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:14951501, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Paddick I: A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 93:Suppl 3 219222, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Paddick I, & Lippitz B: A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg 105:Suppl 194201, 2006

  • 5

    Shepard DM, , Chin LS, , DiBiase SJ, , Naqvi SA, , Lim J, & Ferris MC: Clinical implementation of an automated planning system for gamma knife radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:14881494, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Shepard DM, , Ferris MC, , Ove R, & Ma L: Inverse treatment planning for Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Med Phys 27:27482756, 2000

  • 7

    Verhey LJ, , Smith V, & Serago CF: Comparison of radiosurgery treatment modalities based on physical dose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:497505, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Walton L, , Bomford CK, & Ramsden D: The Sheffield stereotactic radiosurgery unit: physical characteristics and principles of operation. Br J Radiol 60:897906, 1987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Wu A: Physics and dosimetry of the gamma knife. Neurosurg Clin N Am 3:3550, 1992

  • 10

    Wu Q, , Bourland JD, & Robb RA: Fast 3D medial axis transformation to reduce computation and complexity in radiosurgery treatment planning. SPIE 2710:56257, 1996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Yan Y, , Shu H, , Bao X, , Luo L, & Bai Y: Clinical treatment planning optimization by Powell's method for gamma unit treatment system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:247254, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Zhang P, , Dean D, , Metzger A, & Sibata C: Optimization of Gamma knife treatment planning via guided evolutionary simulated annealing. Med Phys 28:17461752, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 620 89 12
Full Text Views 138 20 4
PDF Downloads 147 16 6
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0