Dosimetric comparison and secondary malignancy risk estimation for linac-based and robotic stereotactic radiotherapy in uveal melanoma.

It was aimed to investigate the dosimetric differences among linac-based and robotic stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) techniques for the treatment of uveal melanoma and to evaluate secondary malignancy risks for these different SRT techniques. Ten patients who received robotic SRT with CyberKnife were retrospectively included in this study. A total dose of 54 Gy in three fractions was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). For each patient, non-coplanar micro-multileaf collimator based dynamic conformal arc (DCA), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and circular cone based DCA (cDCA) plans were generated. During the analysis dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, homogeneity index, new conformity index, the volume received more than or equal to 30% and 50% of the prescribed dose were compared. Additionally, secondary malignancy risk for each technique was estimated using the risk factors recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. Robotic SRT plans provided a high degree of conformity within the PTV and better normal tissue sparing compared to linac-based treatment plans. However, dose distribution was more heterogeneous in robotic SRT plans than that in linac-based techniques. Estimated secondary malignancy risk was also found as 3.4%, 1.4%, 1.4% and 1.6% for robotic SRT and linac-based IMRT, DCA, cDCA plans, respectively. Treatment parameters of uveal melanoma patients planned with robotic SRT had superior conformity and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing compared with those planned with the linac-based system. However, estimated secondary malignancy risk was almost two-times higher in robotic SRT than that in linac-based techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medical Dosimetry is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)