Atormac
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 8003  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

 Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2932    
    Printed129    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded88    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 277--281

Frame-based radiosurgery: Is it relevant in the era of IGRT?


1 Division of Radiation Oncology, Medanta Cancer Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
2 Division of Neurosurgery, Medanta Institute of Neurosciences, Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Tejinder Kataria
Chairperson, Division Radiation Oncology, Medanta Cancer Institute, Medanta the Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122 001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.115068

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To assess the setup errors and intrafraction motion in patients treated with frame-based and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Materials and Methods: Ten patients treated with frame-based and six patients treated with frameless radiosurgery were prospectively enrolled in the study. Leksell frame was used for frame-based and a customized uniframe orfit cast for frameless techniques. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken immediately before and after each treatment to evaluate the positional accuracy and corrections applied with the use of hexapod couch for both groups. Results: The mean translational shifts with frame-based SRS were 1.00 ± 0.30 mm in the lateral direction (X), 0.20 ± 1.20 mm in craniocaudal direction (Y) and -0.10 ± 0.31 mm in the anteroposterior direction (Z). The rotational shifts for frame-based treatments were as follows: roll 0.32 ± 0.70, pitch 0.44 ± 0.66 and yaw 0.20 ± 0.4. For frameless SRS, translational shifts were -0.40 ± 0.90, 1.10 ± 1.10, and 0.50 ± 1.30 mm in X, Y, and Z directions, respectively, and rotational shifts were -0.11 ± 0.78, 0.20 ± 0.44, and 0.29 ± 0.35 in roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively. Intrafraction shifts with frame-based SRS were: X = 0.60 ± 1.80 mm, Y = 0.20 ± 0.60 mm, and Z = 0.00 ± 0.05 mm; and rotational shifts were: roll 0.01 ± 0.27, pitch 0.06 ± 0.15, and yaw 0.01 ± 0.09. For frameless SRS, these were: X = 0.11 ± 0.20 mm, Y = 0.20 ± 0.40 mm, and Z = 0.20 ± 0.20 mm and rotational shifts were: roll 0.09 ± 0.23, pitch 0.00 ± 0.12, and yaw 0.00 ± 0.09. Conclusions: In our experience, set up accuracy of frameless SRS is as good as frame-based SRS. With availability of verification methods such as CBCT and hexapod couch, an accurate and precise treatment delivery is feasible with frameless techniques.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow