International Journal of Radiation Research

en Dosimetric and biological comparison of treatment plans between LINAC and robot systems in stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer Radiation Biology Radiation Biology تحقيق بديع Original Research <div style="text-align: justify;">Background: The aim of this study was to make a comparison of plan quality between MLC-based EDGE and the cone-based CyberKnife systems in SBRT of localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Ten patients with target volumes from 34.65 to 82.16 cc were included. Treatment plans were created for both systems using the same constraints. Dosimetric indices including target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) were applied for target, while the sparing of critical organs was evaluated with special dose-volume metrics and integral dose. Meanwhile, the delivery time and monitor units (MUs) were also estimated. The radiobiological indices such as equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also analyzed. Results: Both plans produced similar target coverage, HI and GI. For EDGE, more conformal dose distribution as well as reduced exposure of critical organs were obtained together with reduction of 91% delivery time and 72% MUs. EDGE plans also got lower EUD for bladder, rectum, urethra and penile bulk, which associated with reduction of NTCPs. However, higher values of EUD and TCP for tumor were obtained with CK plans.  Conclusion: It indicated that both systems were capable of producing almost equivalent plan quality and can meet clinical requirements. CyberKnife has higher target dose while EDGE system has more advantages in normal tissue sparing and delivery efficiency.</div> Stereotactic body radiotherapy, prostate cancer, CyberKnife, EDGE. 15 22 http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-1011&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Z. Dai 7900319475328460023102 7900319475328460023102 No National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China L. Zhu 7900319475328460023103 7900319475328460023103 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China A. Wang 7900319475328460023104 7900319475328460023104 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China X. Guo 7900319475328460023105 7900319475328460023105 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhai Hospital affiliated to Navy Medical University, Shanghai, China Y. Liu 7900319475328460023106 7900319475328460023106 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhai Hospital affiliated to Navy Medical University, Shanghai, China Y. Zhuang 7900319475328460023107 7900319475328460023107 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China P. Yang 7900319475328460023108 7900319475328460023108 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China N. Li lee_ak@163.com 7900319475328460023109 7900319475328460023109 Yes National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China H. Zhang 7900319475328460023110 7900319475328460023110 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhai Hospital affiliated to Navy Medical University, Shanghai, China Z. Xiang 7900319475328460023111 7900319475328460023111 No Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China