旋转调强与固定野逆向调强放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学比较研究

Objective To evaluate the performace of fixed field Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc in the radiotherapy for multiple intracranial metastases.Methods The clinical data of 10 patients with multiple intracranial metastases,8 male and 2 female,aged 65-73,were used to design 3 plans:fixed field IMRT,RapidArc with single Arc (RA1),and RapidArc with double Arc (Arc 2).Dose-volume-histogram analysis was used to compare dose results,monitor unit,and delivery time.Results All 3 plans met the clinical requirements.The best target conformity and homogeneity were observed in the RA2 plan (Z = -2.803,- 2.904,P ＜ 0.05) and there were no statistical differences between the IMRT plan and RA1 plan.The maximum doses to the lens,eyes,and brainstem of the two RapidArc plans were all significantly lower than those of the IMRT plan(Z = -2.803--2.191 ,P ＜0.05),and the maximum dose to the optic nerves of the RA2 plan was significantly lower than that of the IMRT plan (Z = -2.293,-2.701 ,P ＜0.05).Compared with the IMRT plan,the average monitor units of the RA1 and RA2 plans were reduced by 29% and 24%,respectively,and the delivery time of these plans were significantly shorter by 84% and 69%,respectively.Conclusions Compared to the IMRT plan,RapidArc plans with single or double Arcs show similar or better effects in the target dose distribution,reduction of irradiation doses on organs at risk and,moreover,significant decrease of the monitor units and delivery time.     

旋转调强与固定野调强治疗肝癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强放疗(IMRT)在肝癌治疗计划中的剂量学差异。方法 选择10例肝癌患者的CT数据,分别设计IMRT计划与单弧(RA1)和双弧(RA2)计划,比较设计计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受量、正常组织受量、机器跳数以及治疗时间。结果 RA1和RA2计划靶区剂量的最大值都低于IMRT(Z=-2.090、-2.666,P＜0.05),计划90%的处方剂量的适形指数低于IMRT(Z=-2.805、-2.809,P＜0.05);危及器官胃与小肠的V40也比IMRT计划低。但IMRT左肾平均剂量低于RapidArc计划组(Z=-1.988、-2.191,P＜0.05);正常组织的V₅、V₁₀和V₁₅IMRT计划低于RapidArc计划组,V20、V25和V30IMRT计划高于RapidArc计划组。RapidArc计划机器跳数是IMRT计划的40%和46%,治疗时间是IMRT计划30%和40%。结论 两种技术设计的计划剂量分布均能满足临床要求,并且剂量分布基本一致。RapidArc计划的适形指数优于IMRT,危及器官剂量也比IMRT计划略有降低,正常组织的低剂量区RapidArc计划组与IMRT相比有先高后低的趋势,并且机器跳数少,治疗时间短。     

容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强在宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）与固定野动态调强（IMRT）两种宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学参数及急性不良反应发生率,为临床治疗技术的选择提供参考依据。方法 选取35例宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,其中,17例接受RapidArc,18例接受IMRT,处方剂量50 Gy,共25次。比较两组治疗计划的剂量-体积直方图（DVH）、靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率。结果 与IMRT相比,RapidArc靶区剂量适形度较高（t=3.13,P<0.05）,但均匀性略低（t=-4.25,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划中股骨头V₂₀、V₃₀均低于IMRT（t=2.56、2.34,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划机器跳数减少了52.1%,治疗所需时间缩短了46.8%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性不良反应发生率相近。结论 对于宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,采用RapidArc或IMRT技术均可达到靶区的剂量要求及保护危及器官的目的。RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势,但机器跳数与出束时间明显优于IMRT计划,实现了治疗效率的大幅提高。     

射野角度优化在颅脑多发转移瘤中的应用研究

目的 探讨在颅脑多发转移瘤中,不同射野角度对逆向调强放疗计划剂量的影响及射野角度优化的可行性。方法 单纯随机取样法选取11例多发脑转移瘤患者,采用射野角度优化逆向调强计划(BAO组),并与射野角度均分逆向调强计划(BAF组)进行比较,统计分析危及器官和正常组织的受照剂量、靶区剂量分布及机器跳数,分析不同射野角度引起的剂量学差异。结果 与BAF组相比,BAO组中左、右眼晶状体最大受照剂量降低了45%、37%(t=-5.707、-4.438,P<0.05);左、右眼球平均受照剂量分别降低了42.6%、44.5%(t=-4.380、-5.638,P<0.05);右侧眼球的最大剂量平均降低32.5%(t=-2.518,P<0.05);右侧视神经的最大剂量降低了23%(t=-3.105,P<0.05);正常脑组织平均受量降低了3%(t=-3.437,P<0.05)。两组逆向调强计划的靶区剂量、适形度和均匀性指数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。角度优化逆向调强计划降低了脑干、视交叉的最大受照剂量和机器跳数,但两组结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 射野角度优化后的逆向调强计划,可保持与射野角度均分的逆向调强计划相当的靶区剂量,同时降低了部分危及器官的受照剂量。对于多发脑转移瘤,射野角度优化的逆向调强计划是可行且有益的。     

宫颈癌术后容积旋转调强放疗与5野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的比较宫颈癌术后容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）与5野调强放疗（5F-IMRT）计划的剂量学差异,并在危及器官保护方面进行分析。方法选择10例宫颈癌术后放疗的5F-IMRT计划,按相同的剂量限制对每例患者行单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT计划设计,比较3种计划的靶区剂量、适形度指数、均匀性指数、危及器官剂量及加速器跳数。组间比较采用单因素方差分析检验,组间两两比较采用LSD检验。结果单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT均能满足靶区处方剂量的要求,在靶区最大剂量、平均剂量、适形度指数和均匀性指数上,双弧VMAT与5F-IMRT计划相当,单弧VMAT计划最差,差异有统计学意义（F=24.102、13.710、5.919、11.045,均P < 0.05）;靶区最小剂量比较,3种计划差异无统计学意义（F=3.323,P>0.05）。单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT计划的加速器跳数明显少于5F-IMRT计划,差异有统计学意义（F=295.138,P < 0.05）。对于小肠、直肠和膀胱的参数最大剂量,双弧VMAT与5F-IMRT计划相当,单弧VMAT计划最差,差异有统计学意义（F=16.069、7.521、13.966,均P < 0.05）。对于膀胱的参数V20、V30和V40（V表示受照剂量体积百分比）,5F-IMRT优于单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT,差异有统计学意义（F=5.142、20.095、7.387,均P < 0.05）。对于左股骨头参数V20和V30,单弧和双弧VMAT优于5F-IMRT,差异有统计学意义（F=3.717、16.040,均P < 0.05）。对于右股骨头参数V30和V40,单弧和双弧VMAT优于5F-IMRT,差异有统计学意义（F=10.873、7.791,均P < 0.05）。结论宫颈癌术后放疗,双弧VMAT计划在靶区剂量学参数上与5F-IMRT计划相当,单弧VMAT计划较差。在危及器官保护方面,3种计划各有优势,但VMAT计划的加速器跳数明显减少,可以提高治疗效率,值得进一步研究。     

快速旋转调强与五野动态调强在乳腺癌 保乳术后放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与五野动态调强(5F-IMRT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 选择8例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后女性患者,处方剂量为50 Gy/ 25次。分别设计RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划。比较两种计划的靶区适形度指数、均匀性指数、靶区覆盖度和危及器官的受照剂量体积,同时比较两组计划实施时的治疗时间和机器跳数。结果 在两种计划的靶区比较中,RapidArc计划的靶区适形度指数为(0.88±0.03),高于5F-IMRT计划的(0.79±0.02)(t=8.28,P<0.05);RapidArc计划的均匀性指数为(9.01±0.73),优于5F-IMRT计划的(10.44±1.08)(t=-2.73,P<0.05)。两组计划在同侧肺受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划的D_mean、V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀小于5F-IMRT计划(t=-7.53、-7.20、-8.39、-7.80,P<0.05),但RapidArc计划中的V₅较5F-IMRT计划增加了约16% (t=5.67,P<0.05);心脏的受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划中的D_mean、V₅、V₁₀均高于5F-IMRT(t=10.46、28.76、5.40,P<0.05),但在RapidArc计划中心脏的V₃₀低于5F-IMRT (t=-6.12,P<0.05)。对侧肺和对侧乳腺的V₅在RapidArc计划中明显高于5F-IMRT计划 (肺:t=21.50,P<0.05;乳腺:t=5.44,P<0.05)。RapidArc计划中机器跳数减少了25%,平均治疗时间节省了60%。结论 乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划比较提高了靶区的适形度和均匀度,减少了高剂量区的受照体积,降低了机器跳数,缩短了治疗时间,但增加了正常组织低剂量区的受照体积。     

容积旋转调强与固定野调强在晚期宫颈癌放疗的剂量学比较及疗效观察

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）和固定野调强（IMRT）技术在宫颈癌根治性放疗的剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率及疗效。方法 回顾性分析43例局部晚期（II_b~IV）宫颈癌患者,其中22例行容积旋转调强放疗,21例行固定野调强放疗,处方剂量50.4 Gy/28次,比较两组靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率;对比两组患者的完全缓解率和有效率。结果 与IMRT计划相比,RapidArc计划的靶区适形性指数CI略好,但差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;两组计划的靶区均匀性指数HI比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。RapidArc计划中膀胱的V₄₀、V₅₀以及直肠的V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀均低于IMRT计划（t=-2.386、-2.397、-5.525、-2.883、-2.686,P < 0.05）,RapidArc计划中股骨头的平均剂量低于IMRT计划（t=-2.395,P < 0.05）。RapidArc较IMRT平均MU减少了53.15%,治疗所需平均时间缩短了62.14%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性反应发生率相近。两组患者完全缓解率和有效率相近。结论 晚期宫颈癌根治性放疗中,采用RapidArc技术可以降低危及器官受量,缩短患者的治疗时间。     

快速旋转调强与固定射野动态调强在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较快速旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定射野动态调强(dIMRT)两种放射治疗技术在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学差异.方法 采用两种治疗技术对10例Ⅱ、Ⅲ期直肠癌术前患者设计同步加量治疗计划.处方剂量为GTV 50.6 Gy,分22次;PTV41.8 Gy,分22次,危及器官限量参考临床常规要求.在95%体积的PTV达到处方剂量前提下,比较两种计划的剂量体积直方(DVH)图、靶区和危及器官剂量、靶区剂量适形度、剂量分布均匀性、机器跳数以及治疗时间.结果 RapidArc计划中,GTV和PTV的靶区剂量适形度较高(t=7.643、8.226,P＜0.05);而靶区剂量均匀性略低于dIMRT(t=-10.065、-4.235,P＜0.05).RapidArc计划中大、小肠的平均受量显著低于dIMRT计划(t=2.781,P＜0.05).膀胱平均受照剂量略低于dIMRT,股骨头的平均受量略高于dIMRT,但差异无统计学意义.RapidArc计划机器跳数减少48.5%,平均治疗时间节省79.5%.结论 RapidArc与dIMRT计划在直肠癌术前放射治疗的剂量学上无明显差异.RapidArc每次治疗时间明显缩短,减少了治疗期间患者非主观运动引起的误差,总的机器跳数降低,减少了正常组织照射.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between RapidArc and fixed gantry angle dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) in developing the pre-operative radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients.Methods Two techniques,RapidArc and dIMRT,were used respectively to develop the synchronous intensity modulated plans for 10 stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ rectal cancer patients at the dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) of 50.6 Gy divided into 22 fractions and planning target volume (PTV) of 41.8 Gy divided into 22 fractions.Both plans satisfied the condition of 95% of PTV covered by 41.8 Gy.The dose-volume histogram data,isodose distribution,monitor units,and treatment time were compared.Results The two kinds of dose volume histogram (DVH) developed by these two techniques were almost the same.The conformal indexes of GTV and PTV by RapidArc were better than those by dIMRT (t =7.643,8.226 ,P < 0.05),while the homogeneity of target volume by dIMRT was better (t =-10.065,-4.235 ,P <0.05).The dose of rectum and small bowel planned by RapidArc was significantly lower than that by dIMRT (t =2.781 ,P <0.05).There were no significant differences in the mean doses of bladder and femoral head between these two techniques.The mean monitor units of RapidArc was 475.5,fewer by 48.5% in comparison with that by the dIMRT (924.6).The treatment mean time by RapidArc was 1.2min,shorter by 79.5% in comparison with that by dIMRT (5.58 min).Conclusions There is no significant dosimetric difference between the two plans of RapidArc and dIMRT.Compared with dIMRT,RapidArc achieves equal target coverage and organs at risk(OAR) sparing while using fewer monitor units and less time during radiotherapy for patient with rectal cancer.     

容积旋转调强放疗和常规调强放疗技术在乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量中的剂量学比较

 目的 比较容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)和常规调强放疗(IMRT)两种技术在乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量放疗中剂量学差异。方法 随机选择10例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后患者,使用MONACO 5.1计划系统,分别设计VMAT和IMRT计划,处方剂量均为PTV_50Gy/25 f、PGTVtb60 Gy/25 f,评估两种计划靶区剂量适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI),以及正常器官受照剂量(Gy)、机器跳数(MU)及治疗时间。结果 VMAT计划中靶区剂量的适形度明显优于IMRT(P<0.05),而患侧肺V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀及健侧肺V₅稍高于IMRT组(P<0.05)。结论 对于乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量放疗,VMAT和IMRT计划都可以满足临床剂量学的要求,VMAT在适形度方面对于IMRT计划有优势,并缩短了治疗时间。     

保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异.方法 20例左侧乳腺癌患者(均女性,24～75岁)保乳术后接受放疗,在同一患者CT影像上分别进行2野共面动态调强和容积调强(RapidArc)两种治疗计划设计.在剂量-体积直方图中读取两种计划的靶区剂量分布参数,心脏、双侧肺及对侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,对各参数的均数进行比较;并比较两者平均机器跳数和平均治疗时间的差异.结果 RapidArc较IMRT计划CTV V95%增加了0.65%(t=5.16,P=0.001),V105%下降了10.96%(t=-2.05,P=0.055),V110%下降了1.48%(t=-1.33,P=0.197).RapidArc计划的适形指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)均优于IMRT治疗计划,分别为0.88±0.02 vs 0.74±0.03(t=18.54,P＜0.001),1.11±0.01 Vs 1.12±0.02(t=-2.44,P=0.025).两种计划中左肺V20和Dmax比较差异无统计学意义,但在RapidArc计划中V10、V5、Dmix、Dmean明显增高,V5增高了接近30%.心脏V30和Dmax在两计划中无明显差异,而RapidArc计划的V10增加了18%,V5增加50%.RapidArc计划的右乳V5和右肺V5较IMRT分别增加了9.33%(t=9.31,P＜0.001)和3.04%(t=5.64,P＜0.001).RapidArc和IMRT平均机器跳数分别是608和437 MU(t=10.86,P＜0.001),平均治疗时间111.3和103.6 s(t=3.57,P=0.002).结论 早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺RapidAre放疗与2野动态调强放疗相比,能明显改善靶区剂量分布均匀性.对于危及器官,高剂量区两种治疗计划之间无明显差异,低剂量区RapidArc的照射范围明显增加.与2野动态调强相比,RapidArc放疗机器跳数增加,治疗时间延长.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric are modulation with RapidArc and fixed field dynamic IMRT for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.Methods Twenty patients with early left-sided breast cancer received radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.After target definition,treatment planning was performed by RapidAre and two fixed fields dynamic IMRT respectively on the same CT scan.The target dose distribution,homogeneity of the breast,and the irradiation dose and volume for the lungs,heart,and eontralateral breast were read in the dosevolume histogram (DVH) and compared between RapidAre and IMRT.The treatment delivery time and monitor units were also compared.Results In comparison with the IMRT planning,the homogeneity of clinical target volume (CTV) ,the volume proportion of 95% prescribed dose (V95%) was significantly higher by 0.65% in RapidAre (t =5.16,P = 0.001) ,and the V105% and V110% were lower by 10.96% and 1.48 % respectively,however,without statistical significance (t =-2.05 ,P =0.055 and t =-1.33 ,P =0.197).The conformal index of planning target volume (PTV) by the Rap~dAre planning was (0.88±0.02),significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning [(0.74±0.03),t = 18.54,P < 0.001].The homogeneity index (HI) of PTV by the RapidArc planning was 1.11±0.01,significantly lower than that by the IMRT planning (1.12±0.02,t =-2.44,P =0.02).There were no significant differences in the maximum dose (Dmax) and V20 for the ipsilateral lung between the RapidArc and IMRT planning,but the values of V10,V5 ,Dmin and Dmean by RapidArc planning were all significantly higher than those by the IMRT planning (all P < 0.01).The values of max dose and V30 for the heart were similar by both techniques,but the values of V10 and V5 by the RapidArc planning were significantly higher (by 18% and 50% ,respectively).The V5 of the contralateral breast and lung by the RapidArc planning were increased by 9.33% and 3.04% respectively compared to the IMRT planning.The mean MU of the RapidArc was 608 MU,significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning (437 MU,t = 10.86,P < 0.001).The treatment time by the RapidArc planning was 111.3 s,significantly longer than that by IMRT planning (103.6 s,t = 3.57,P = 0.002).Conclusions The RapidArc planning improves the dose distribution of CTV and homogeneity of PTV for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.However,it significantly enlarges the volume of normal tissues irradiated in low dose areas,prolongs the treatment delivery time,and increases the MU value in comparison with IMRT.     

宫颈癌术后螺旋断层放疗与常规加速器调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 研究宫颈癌术后螺旋断层放疗(helical tomotherapy,HT)与常规静态调强放疗(IMRT)的剂量学特点。方法 采用10例宫颈癌术后患者CT图像,统一勾画靶区及危及器官(膀胱、直肠、小肠及双侧股骨头),分别传输至HT计划系统和IMRT计划系统,比较两组计划剂量体积直方图、适形度指数(CI)、均匀指数(HI)和危及器官所接受的照射剂量和体积,统一给予阴道残端60 Gy/25次,亚临床病灶50 Gy/25次,同时限定膀胱、直肠、小肠、股骨头等危及器官受照射剂量与体积。统一应用50 Gy处方剂量评价和比较CI和HI。结果 HT组适形指数(0.94±0.03)和均匀指数(1.28±0.02)均明显好于IMRT组(0.85±0.01和1.36±0.03)(t =5.12和-6.34, P<0.01);HT组PTV平均剂量为51.77Gy显著低于IMRT组54.53Gy(t =-8.01, P<0.05);HT组膀胱、直肠和小肠最大剂量、平均剂量、V₃₀、V₄₀和V₅₀照射体积均显著低于IMRT组;HT组左、右侧股骨头最大剂量、平均剂量、V₃₀和V₄₀照射体积均显著低于IMRT组。结论 HT与IMRT计划均有较好的靶区剂量分布,但HT组在适形指数、均匀指数及对周围危及器官的保护均比IMRT组有明显优势。     

三维适形、逆向调强及旋转调强放疗技术对部分乳腺外照射的剂量学比较

目的 比较三维适形(3 D-CRT)、逆向调强(IMRT)及旋转调强(V-MAT)3种部分乳腺外照射(EB-PBI)治疗计划的剂量学差异.方法 选择定位影像资料完整的12例保乳术后行EB-PBI患者,每例患者分别设计3D-CRT、IMRT、V-MAT 3种治疗计划,比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受照剂量及所需机器跳数(MU)和治疗时间.结果 3D-CRT计划的靶区适形度最差,V-MAT计划的处方剂量靶区覆盖率及靶区剂量均匀性最差.3D-CRT计划中患侧肺V5、V10和平均剂量低,而患侧肺V30高;计划间患侧肺V20差异无统计学意义;V-MAT计划中15、20和25 Gy剂量包绕的同侧正常乳腺体积少;对于心脏V5、平均剂量及最大剂量、对侧肺平均剂量、甲状腺平均和最大剂量,IMRT＞ V-MAT＞ 3D-CRT,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.94 ～ -2.09,P＜0.05).3D-CRT、IMRT和V-MAT计划所需MU值分别为417.6 ±34.4、772.8±54.4和631.0±109.0,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.93、-2.76、-2.93,P＜0.05);V-MAT计划施照时间短.结论 对于部分乳腺癌的放射治疗,旋转调强计划在降低患侧靶区外正常乳腺组织受照射剂量和减少治疗时间方面优势比较明显.     

脑胶质瘤三维适形放射治疗与调强放射治疗的剂量学比较

目的 评价脑胶质瘤调强放射治疗较三维适形放射治疗的剂量学优势。方法 本研究采用10例脑胶质瘤患者,针对所有患者分别进行3D CRT和IMRT的计划设计,利用剂量体积直方图评价不同照射技术中靶区和正常组织照射剂量、适形度指数和不均匀性指数。处方剂量为60 Gy。结果 IMRT计划脑干最大剂量和受照体积、患侧腮腺平均剂量和脊髓最大剂量均低于3D CRT计划。对于靶区适形度指数,IMRT计划优于3D CRT计划;对于不均匀性指数,两种计划模式的差异没有统计学意义。结论 在脑胶质瘤放疗中应用 IMRT可以明显降低脑干的剂量和受照体积,为靶区剂量的提高提供了可能性。     

宫颈癌放疗中的快速旋转调强计划和调强计划比较

目的 探讨快速旋转调强(RapidArc)计划和固定野调强计划(IMRT)的优劣.方法 选择10例宫颈癌病例,在Eclipse 8.6计划系统上分别对其进行单弧、双弧及三弧RapidArc和固定野凋强放疗计划设计,依次分别用Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT表示.比较4者的计划制作及治疗时间、靶区及危及器官剂量分布差异.结果 10例病例的Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT计划设计时间平均值分别为112、131、154和46 min,在瓦里安IX加速器上的治疗时间平均值分别为2.15、3.32、4.48和6.95 min,平均剂量分别为48.99、49.40、49.51和48.65 Gy,靶区均匀指数分别为1.11、1.07、1.06和1.12,靶区适形指数分别为0.73、0.87、0.87和0.79.IMRT计划的直肠、膀胱和小肠等危及器官受量最小,4种计划的股骨颈受量相似.结论 RapidArc计划在靶区剂量分布、均匀度、适形度以及治疗时间方面占优势,IMRT计划在计划的剂量计算时间和危及器官的保护方面占优势.总体临床应用上RapidArc计划优于IMRT计划.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the advantages and disadvantages between the RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan (IMRT).Methods Ten cases of cervical cancer,aged 55 (36-70),who were to receive post-operative radiotherapy were selected randomly.Single arc (Arc 1),two arcs (Arc 2),and three arc (Arc 3) RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan were designed respectively in the Eclipse 8.6 planning system.The designing,treatment time,target area,and dose distribution of organs at risk by these 4 planning techniques were compared.Results The values of average planned treatment time by the Arc 1,Arc 2,and Arc 3 ten cases was 98,155,185,and 46 min,respectively.The values of average treatment time in the Varian IX accelerator were 2.15,3.32,4.48,and 6.95 min,respectively.The average mean doses were (48.99±1.08),(49.40±0.51) ,(49.51±0.62) ,and (48.65±0.92) Gy,respectively.The values of homogeneity index (HI) of target were 1.11±0.07,1.07±0.02,1.06±0.02,and 1.12±0.05,respectively.The values of eonformal index (CI) of target were 0.73±0.13,0.87±0.06,0.87±0.06,and 0.79±0.06,respectively.The doses at rectum,bladder,and small intestine calculated by IMRT plan were the lowest,and the doses at the femoral neck calculated by these 4 plans were similar.Conclusions The RapidArc plan is superior in dose distribution at target,HI,CI,and treatment time to IMRT,but IMRT plan is superior to RapidArc in planned dose calculation time and protection of organs at risk.However,in general,the RapidArc plan is better in clinical application than IMRT plan.     

胸上段食管癌无均整器容积弧形调强与固定野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 探讨在瓦里安TrueBeam^TM直线加速器中使用无均整器出束容积弧形调强(RA-FFF)及常规固定野调强(IMRT)两种计划剂量学差异.方法 选择10例分期为cT_2-3N_0-1M_0-1a胸上段食管癌患者定位CT资料,使用ECLIPSE^TM 10.0.4治疗计划系统分别设计RA-FFF、IMRT根治性放疗计划,处方剂量为60 Gy/30次,比较2种计划的剂量学参数和执行效率.结果 2种计划靶区适形度相似,差异无统计学意义;IMRT计划的均匀性指数高于RA-FFF计划(t=7.298,P=0.008);RA-FFF计划中肺组织的V₂₀、V₅低于IMRT计划(t=2.451、2.604,P<0.05).RA-FFF及IMRT两种计划制定时间分别为(5.3±1.4)、(3.5±1.7)h(t=2.585,P<0.05),机器总跳数分别为632±213及734±132(t=-1.287,P=0.084),治疗执行时间分别为(2.2±0.9)、(4.5±1.3)min(t=4.60,P<0.01).结论 与IMRT计划相比,RA-FFF在胸上段食管癌治疗中具有相似的靶区剂量分布,可更好地保护肺组织,计划制定时间较长但执行效率较高.