| 3种立体定向放射外科技术在不同脑转移瘤个数下的比较 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 魏夏平,苏洁洪,林楚婕,朱毅,刘叶明,黄明超,黄小伟,石俊月.3种立体定向放射外科技术在不同脑转移瘤个数下的比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2022,0(11):1329-1333. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 魏夏平 苏洁洪 林楚婕 朱毅 刘叶明 黄明超 黄小伟 石俊月 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1.广州中医药大学金沙洲医院肿瘤放射治疗中心， 广东 广州 510168； 2.东莞理工学院科学技术处， 广东 东莞 523808； 3.前海人寿广州总医院， 广东 广州 511300 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的:比较HyperArc、容积旋转调强（VMAT）和射波刀（CyberKnife）在单发和多发脑转移瘤（BM）放射治疗中的剂量学差异。方法:将75例脑转移瘤CT图像分成5组（1 BM、4 BM、8 BM、15 BM、20 BM），分别设计HyperArc、非共面VMAT和CyberKnife这3种不同技术（HA、nCO-VMAT、CK）的计划。分析比较3种计划的剂量学差异，包括靶区适形度指数（CI）、梯度指数（GI）、正常脑组织平均剂量（Brainmean）、机器总跳数（MU）以及出束时间。结果:在1 BM中，HA、nCO-VMAT、CK的GI值（P=0.429）和Brainmean值（P=0.799）接近；HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）。在4 BM中，HA、nCO-VMAT、CK的GI值（P=0.334）和Brainmean值（P=0.317）都接近；HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）。在8 BM中，HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）；HA和CK的GI值接近，优于nCO-VMAT（P<0.001）。在15 BM中，HA的CI值（P<0.001）最优；CK的GI值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差；CK的Brainmean值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差。在20 BM中，HA的CI值（P<0.001）最优；CK的GI值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差。在所有组中HA和nCO-VMAT的MU值都比CK低，CK的出束时间都远大于HA和nCO-VMAT。结论:HA、nCO-VMAT与CK技术都可以降低正常脑组织的剂量，都能取得很好的CI和GI，但HA出束时间短，CK出束时间长。
|
| 关 键 词： | 脑转移瘤 容积旋转调强 剂量学比较 HyperArc 射波刀 |
Comparison among 3 different SRS techniques in the treatment of single or multiple brain metastases |
| |
| WEI Xiaping,SU Jiehong,LIN Chujie,ZHU Yi,LIU Yeming,HUANG Mingchao,HUANG Xiaowei,SHI Junyue.Comparison among 3 different SRS techniques in the treatment of single or multiple brain metastases[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2022,0(11):1329-1333. |
| |
| Authors: | WEI Xiaping SU Jiehong LIN Chujie ZHU Yi LIU Yeming HUANG Mingchao HUANG Xiaowei SHI Junyue |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jinshazhou Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510168, China 2.Office for Science and Technology, Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan 523808, China3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Foresea Life Insurance Guangzhou General Hospital, Guangzhou 511300, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Abstract: Objective To compare the dosimetric differences among HyperArc (HA), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and CyberKnife (CK) in the radiotherapy of single or multiple brain metastases. Methods The CT images of 75 cases of brain metastases were divided into 5 groups (1 BM, 4 BM, 8 BM, 15 BM, 20 BM), and 3 different treatment plans (HA, nCO-VMAT and CK) were designed for each case. The treatment plans were evaluated and compared in terms of conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), mean dose to normal brain tissues (Brainmean), total monitor units (MU) and delivery time. Results In the cases of 1 BM and 4 BM, GI (1 BM: P=0.429 4 BM: P=0.334) and Brainmean ](1 BM: P=0.799 4 BM: P=0.317) did not differ significantly among HA, nCO-VMAT and CK and the CI of HA was close to that of nCO-VMAT, and both of them were higher than that of CK (1 BM: P<0.001 4 BM: P<0.001). In the cases of 8 BM, the CI of HA and nCO-VMAT was close and higher than that of CK (P<0.001), and the GI of HA and CK were close and higher than that of nCO-VMAT (P<0.001). In the cases of 15 BM, HA had the optimal CI among 3 different plans and CK had the lowest GI (P<0.001) and Brainmean ] (P<0.001), followed by HA and nCO-VMAT. In the cases of 20 BM, the optimal CI was found in HA (P<0.001) CK has the minimum GI (P<0.001), followed by HA and nCO-VMAT. In all groups, MU of both HA and nCO-VMAT were lower than that of CK, and the beam delivery time of CK was much longer than those of HA and nCO-VMAT. Conclusion All these techniques (HA, nCO-VMAT and CK) can minimize the irradiated doses to normal brain tissues and achieve satisfying CI and GI. The beam delivery time required for HA is shorter, but the beam delivery time required for CK is much longer. |
| |
| Keywords: | Keywords: brain metastasis volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric comparison HyperArc CyberKnife |
|
| 点击此处可从《中国医学物理学杂志》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《中国医学物理学杂志》下载全文 |
|
