Dosimetric comparison of ZAP-X, Gamma Knife, and CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery for single brain metastasis
Jinyuan Wang,Qingzeng Zheng,Yanping Wang,Chengcheng Wang,Shouping Xu,Zhongjian Ju,Longsheng Pan,Jingmin Bai,Yunmo Liu,Baolin Qu,Xiangkun Dai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12710-y
IF: 4.638
2024-08-01
BMC Cancer
Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric characteristics of ZAP-X stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for single brain metastasis by comparing with two mature SRS platforms. Methods: Thirteen patients with single brain metastasis treated with CyberKnife (CK) G4 were selected retrospectively. The prescription dose for the planning target volume (PTV) was 18-24 Gy for 1-3 fractions. The PTV volume ranged from 0.44 to 11.52 cc.Treatment plans of thirteen patients were replanned using the ZAP-X plan system and the Gamma Knife (GK) ICON plan system with the same prescription dose and organs at risk (OARs) constraints. The prescription dose of PTV was normalized to 70% for both ZAP-X and CK, while it was 50% for GK. The dosimetric parameters of three groups included the plan characteristics (CI, GI, GSI, beams, MUs, treatment time), PTV (D2, D95, D98, Dmin, Dmean, Coverage), brain tissue (volume of 100%-10% prescription dose irradiation V100%-V10%, Dmean) and other OARs (Dmax, Dmean),all of these were compared and evaluated. All data were read and analyzed with MIM Maestro. One-way ANOVA or a multisample Friedman rank sum test was performed, where p < 0.05 indicated significant differences. Results: The CI of GK was significantly lower than that of ZAP-X and CK. Regarding the mean value, ZAP-X had a lower GI and higher GSI, but there was no significant difference among the three groups. The MUs of ZAP-X were significantly lower than those of CK, and the mean value of the treatment time of ZAP-X was significantly shorter than that of CK. For PTV, the D95, D98, and target coverage of CK were higher, while the mean of Dmin of GK was significantly lower than that of CK and ZAP-X. For brain tissue, ZAP-X showed a smaller volume from V100% to V20%; the statistical results of V60% and V50% showed a difference between ZAP-X and GK, while the V40% and V30% showed a significant difference between ZAP-X and the other two groups; V10% and Dmean indicated that GK was better. Excluding the Dmax of the brainstem, right optic nerve and optic chiasm, the mean value of all other OARs was less than 1 Gy. For the brainstem, GK and ZAP-X had better protection, especially at the maximum dose. Conclusion: For the SRS treating single brain metastasis, all three treatment devices, ZAP-X system, CyberKnife G4 system, and GammaKnife system, could meet clinical treatment requirements. The newly platform ZAP-X could provide a high-quality plan equivalent to or even better than CyberKnife and Gamma Knife, with ZAP-X presenting a certain dose advantage, especially with a more conformal dose distribution and better protection for brain tissue. As the ZAP-X systems get continuous improvements and upgrades, they may become a new SRS platform for the treatment of brain metastasis.