Evaluation of a new secondary dose calculation software for Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Issue 1 (14th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Prusator, Michael T.; Zhao, Tianyu; Kavanaugh, James A.; Santanam, Lakshmi; Dise, Joe; Goddu, S. Murty; Mitchell, Timothy J.; Zoberi, Jacqueline E.; Kim, Taeho; Mutic, Sasa; Knutson, Nels C.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 95
• Page End: 102
• Publication Date: 2020-01-14
• Subjects: Gamma Knife -- icon -- secondary dose calculation -- SRS; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12794
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Current available secondary dose calculation software for Gamma Knife radiosurgery falls short in situations where the target is shallow in depth or when the patient is positioned with a gamma angle other than 90°. In this work, we evaluate a new secondary calculation software which utilizes an innovative method to handle nonstandard gamma angles and image thresholding to render the skull for dose calculation. 800 treatment targets previously treated with our GammaKnife Icon system were imported from our treatment planning system (GammaPlan 11.0.3) and a secondary dose calculation was conducted. The agreement between the new calculations and the TPS were recorded and compared to the original secondary dose calculation agreement with the TPS using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Further comparisons using a Mann‐Whitney test were made for targets treated at a 90° gamma angle against those treated with either a 70 or 110 gamma angle for both the new and commercial secondary dose calculation systems. Correlations between dose deviations from the treatment planning system against average target depth were evaluated using a Kendall's Tau correlation test for both programs. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicated a significant difference in the agreement between the two secondary calculations and the TPS, with a P ‐value < 0.0001. With respect to patients treated at nonstandard gamma angles, the new software was largely independent of patient setup, while the commercial software showed a significant dependence ( P ‐value < 0.0001). The new secondary dose calculation software showed a moderate correlation with calculation depth, while the commercial software showed a weak correlation (Tau = −.322 and Tau = −.217 respectively). Overall, the new secondary software has better agreement with the TPS than the commercially available secondary calculation software over a range of diverse treatment geometries.